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

Century
Author(s): Giulio Carlo Argan and Nesca A. Robb
Source: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 9 (1946), pp. 96-121
Published by: The Warburg Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/750311
Accessed: 22/01/2010 23:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=warburg.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Warburg Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the
Warburg and Courtauld Institutes.

http://www.jstor.org

THE ARCHITECTURE OF BRUNELLESCHI AND THE

ORIGINS OF PERSPECTIVE THEORY IN
THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
By Giulio Carlo Argan

r | ahe invention of perspectiveand the discovery of antiquity: these two

1 eventshave for long been held to markthe beginningsof the Renaissance.
Modern criticism has sharply limited the importance of both events, and
above all of the second:so profounda transformationof the artisticconscience
could not clearly have been caused by external circumstances. It is not so
much needful to decide how far the artists of the early Quattrocentohad
penetratedinto the objectiveunderstandingof space (if indeed one can speak
of such an objectiveunderstanding)or into the knowledgeof the documents
relating to antique art, as it is to discoverthe internal necessitythat urged
them to seek that knowledge. In fact the same inwardimpulseis commonto
both activities: the searchfor a more exact knowledgeof space and that for
a more exact knowledgeof antique art are inseparable,until such time at
least as the study of antique art assumes,as it does in the full maturityof
humanisticculture, an independentexistenceas the science of antiquity.
It is well known that the new ideal of beauty was defined, classically,as
a harmonyof parts,in otherwordsby meansof the idea of proportion,which,
and it was
accordingto Vitruvius,is the same thing as the Greek 9axovLoc;
with this same word that Euclid describedgeometricalcongruity,which is
the fundamentalprinciple of perspective. If perspectiveis the process by
which we arrive at proportion,that is to say, at beauty or the perfectionof
art, it is also the processby which we reach the antique which is art par
excellence or perfectbeauty.
The classicaltraditionhad been neitherlost nor extinguishedthroughout
the whole of the Middle Ages; on the contrary, it had been diffused and
popularized. To set oneself the task of rediscoveringthe ancients, meant
setting oneselfto determinethe concretehistoricalvalue of the achievements
of ancientart, as distinguishedfromits mediaevalcorruptionsand popularizations. The activity by which we recognizevalue is judgment, and judgment
is an act of the total consciousness. Enthusiasmfor, or faith in antiquity,
impulseswhich had had, during the Middle Ages their momentsof genuine
exaltation,are henceforthinsufficient:the formulationof judgment, since it
implies a definitionof the value of consciousness,implies also a definitionof
the value of reality, because such a judgment is a judgment of being and
not-being, of reality and non-reality.
What was sought for in ancient art was thereforenot a transcendental
an immanentvalue,
value, but, in oppositionto mediaevaltranscendentalism,
a conceptionof the world. The touchstoneby which we recognizevalues is
reality: not a limitlessand continuousreality which can be graspedonly in
the particular,and in which man himselfis absorbed,but nature as a reality
conceived by man and distinct from him as the object from the subject.
96

THE ARCHITECTURE OF BRUNFT.T.FjSCHI

97

Nature is the form of reality, in so far as it revealsand makesit tangible in

its full complexity: the laws of form are also the laws of nature, and the
mental processby which we arrive at the conception of nature is the same
as that which leads to the conception of form, that is to say of art.l The
Renaissance begins, so far as the figurative arts are concerned, when to
artisticactivity is added the idea of art as a consciousnessof its own act: it is
then that the mediaeval ars mechanica
becomes ars liberalis. "Ancient artwrites D. Frey2-appears to the Btesternmind as nature, with a heightened
significancewherebythe natural becomesthe expressionof a profoundtruth
and of perfection. Thus in the Westeverytendencyto naturalisticor rationalistic developmentis always referableto a classicalsource."
The formulationof a common law for nature and for artisticform lies in
perspective:which may in generalterms,be definedas the methodor mental
procedurefor the determinationof value. In the writersof the Quattrocento
exceptingnaturallyin Cenniniand Ghiberti we see clearlythe belief that
perspectiveis not simplya rule of optics which may alsobe applied to artistic
expression,but a procedurepeculiar to art, which in art has its single and
logical end. Perspectiveis art itself in its totality: no relationis possiblebetween the artist and the world except through the medium of perspective,
just as no relation is possiblebetween the human spirit and reality short of
falling back upon the mediaevalantithesisof conceptualismand nominalism
unless we assumethe conceptionof nature. Hence proceedsthat identity
of perspective-paintingand science, clearly aErmed by the theoristsof the
Quattrocento.
The startingpoint of the controversybetween modernistsand traditionalistsat the beginningofthe Quattrocentoseemsto me to be notablyindicated
in a passage, probably not devoid of polemical intentions,in the Pitturaof
Alberti: "no man denies that of such things as we cannot see there is none
that appertainethunto the painter: the painter studieth to depict only that
which is seen."
On the other hand, accordingto Cennini, a typical representativeof the
traditionalistschool, the painter'stask is "to discoverthings unseen, that are
hid beneath the shadow of things natural." The exact interpretationof the
passage, which has been variously explained,3is to be found in Chapter
lxxxvii of the same "Libro dell'Arte," where it is suggestedto the painter
that: "if thou wouldstlearn to paint mountainsin a worthy manner,so that
they be like nature, take great stones which be rough and not cleansedand
draw them as they are, adding light and shade as it shall seem fit to thee."
Since the result to be aimed at is a symbol of the mountain, the object
(the stone) has no value in itself, apart from its external configuration,
1 For the nature-formrelation in Renais3 E. Panofskyin Idea(Teubnered., Berlin,
sance thought see E. Cassirer, Individuoe I924), p. 23 and note 94 has given a NeoCosmo,tr. Federici,Florence,La Nuova Italia Platonic interpretationof this passage of
ed., p. 25I.
Cennini; it is, however, a question of
2 D. Frey, L'Architettura
della Rinascenza,mediaeval Neo-Platonismin the Plotinian
Rome, I924, p. 7.
tradition.

98

GIULIO CARLO ARGAN

analogousto that of the mountain. The analogyis purely external,morphological; but the difference,which consistsin the situation of the mountain
in space, is of no interest to the painter because the formal motive of his
picture is not spatial, and indeed takes no account of space. He will link
that image with othersin obedienceto a rhythmicor narrativecoherencebut
principallyin obedience to a "manner"acquiredthrough long discipleship
with his masters,that is, with tradition. From the perceptionof the material
datum (the stone) the artisticprocessis still a long one: and since its end is in
infinity or in abstraction,of what significancecan the distance between the
neighbouringstone and the far-offmountainbe when comparedwitll that?
When, on the other hand, Albertiaffirmsthat the visibleis the domainof the
painter, he does not refer to the mechanicalperceptionof the eye and the
limited notions that derive from it, but to a full, total, sensoryexperience.
The eye may be consideredas a mechanicaland impersonalinstrument,a
recordingmechanism:instead the sensesare already consideredas a grade
of intelligence. Alberti, though he denies that the mental domain of the
paintercan extend beyond the limits of the domain of the senses,yet affirms
that the artisticprocessdoes not begin, as it does for Cennini,with the data of
visiblethings,only to end in an abstraction,but takesplace whollywithin the
sphereof sensoryexperienceas a processof understandingand investigation:
that very experiencewill not be complete and fully defined until after such
reflection.
Cenninirestrictedthe painter'scontact with reality as far as he could, so
as to leave the widest possible margin for tradition. Alberti, by making
the limits of reality coincide exactly with those of the sensorypowers,refuses
any value to tradition consideredas a complex of ideas learned without
referenceto direct experience. It is true that Cenninialso demandsa contact
with reality (the stone which is copied as a symbolof the mountain): but that
is only because tradition is transmittedthrough momentsof reality, which
are the lives of men. For Alberti, life is an ultimatevalue: it neitherreceives
nor transmitsa universalinheritance,but rather,in its very consciousnessof
its own finitenature,that is, in the completenessof its experienceofthe world,
it arrivesat a point where it has the value of universality.
We have already pointed out that with the assumptionof the idea of
nature as the limit or definitionof reality, the value of consciousnessor of
personalitywas contemporaneouslyin processof definition. Certainlyman
also is, and feels himselfto be, nature; but he feels himselfto be so in so far
as he has already detached himself from unlimited reality, and the limits
within which he recognizeshimself are markedby what he can grasp and
understandof reality, that is by nature. Nature and the Ego, born of the
same act, are governed by the same law; man identifieshimself no longer
with the creation,but with the Creator.
The man of the Renaissance,in this Platonicdeterminationof his to know
himselfin nature, necessarilyfocussedhis first and most ardentinterestupon
his own native sensorycapacity,upon his own naturalness. It has beenjustly
remarkedthat the oppositionwhich the thoughtof the Renaissancelays down

THE ARCHITECTURE OF BRUNF.T.T.F.SCHI

99

as a first definitionof personalityis not that between man and nature, but
that between man (vir) and fate (fortuna); nature is "an organismnot hostile
to man but akin to him, and doweredwith intelligence,an open field wherein
he may extend his personality.''1 From the oppositionof virtus and fortuna,
which derivesfromthe Scholasticview of man'sstrugglefor good againstthe
constantassaultsof evil, the moral quality of personalityemerged; Giovanni
Pisano, Giotto, Dante, Petrarch,were, during the Trecento,the great representatives of this dramatic conception of life as a struggle for redemption.
Nature, conceivedas full and lucid sensoryexperience,presupposesthis moral
conceptiorlof personality;it is a reality alreadygraspedand comprehended,
and so clear and transparentthat the human person, that supremeexample
and image ofthe perfectionofthe divine creation,can see itselfreflectedthere
as in a mirror. But this inspired, and indeed profoundlyclassic moment,
in which man becomes aware of his own naturalness,is not the end. Life
is not that moment,it is the seriesof such moments. If we start by affirming
the moral quality of personality;if, that is, we considerit in relation to an
end, there immediately arises the problem of the relation of life, in all its
activities, to its initial naturalnessand to its final aim. And here we have
already the problemof history as a consciousnessof its own "activity.'>2In
fact if the final aim is completeself-knowledge,the whole life of the spiritwill
consist in retracingits natural life, hitherto empiric, to an ideal ancestryor
an ideal genesis. Burdach'sinterpretationof the Renaissanceas a regeneration or rebirthin the antique (in a Christian,that is in an ethical sense)3is
thus given its full force: the processof this palingenesisis history, through
which we are enabled to rediscoverour true nature, and so to rise from an
empiric to a systematicconceptionof the world. Thus the oppositionof the
identity of nature and history to the mediaevalidentificationof reality with
tradition,finds an historicaljustification,beforeit finds a theoreticalone; in
the monumentsof ancient art the artistsof the Quattrocentoseek to discover
their own Latin nature in its most essentialcharacteristics. Even that first
description of humanity as virtusin opposition to fortunathen assumes a
precise historicalsignificance; the very one that Petrarchgives it when he
proclaims that Roman virtSwill take up arms agaiIlst the furoreof the
"barbarian"
invaders. It is the rational light of history that dispels the
darknessof hostile fate. This idea of Latin virtusis undoubtedlyactive in
Cennini,when he pointsout that Giotto "changedart fromGreekinto Latin,
and made it modern": the term "Latin"cannot certainlycorrespondto any
concrete figurativeexperiment,but only to the moral order of values. To
oriental mysticismin fact Giotto opposes a religious sentiment that fulfils
itself in drama, that is to say in action, and that can be measuredin the
activities of practical life.
Of Brunelleschi,Manetti says that "he restoredthat fashionin buildings
which is called Roman or antique" "for before him these were all German
1 G. Nicco, introduction to the critical which it followsthat "only in his historycan
Pingendiof Piero man give proof of his freedomand creative
edition of the De Prospectiva
power"see E. Cassirer,op. cit., p. 73.
della Francesca,"Sansoni, Florence, I942,
Rinascimento,
Umane3 K. Burdach,Riforma,
p. I7.
2 For the conceptionof life as activity,from simo,tr. Cantimori,Sansoni,Florence,I933.

IOO

GIULIO CARLO ARGAN

and were called modern." In Manettithe Germans(GothicArt) have taken

the place of the Greeks,of whom indeed, as Worringerhas acutely pointed
out, they were the naturalheirs. For Cenninithe word modernhas a positive
sense, for Manetti it has a negative one: for Cennini modernmeans actual,
for Manetti non-actual, since the corsivo has become the antique. Modern
has become the equivalentof the merely chronological;in the antique the
value of history is already implicit. That this is by no means an objective
inquiryis, however,revealedby the fact that Manettiis in nowiseconcerned
to determine whether Brunelleschihad rediscoveredor invented the constructionallaws of the ancients,laws being takento mean both their technical
expedients and their "musical proportions,"that is to say symmetry and
perspective;"thosewho might have taught him these things had been dead
for hundredsof years: and they are not to be found in writing, or if they be
found they may not well be understood;but his own industryand subtlety
did either rediscoverthem or else were themselvesthe discoverers." It is
significantthat the same thought is to be found also in Alberti: "If this art
was ever describedin writing we are those who have dug it up from underground, and if it was never so described,we have drawn it from heaven."
To rediscoveror to invent, to find the law of ancient art or of nature, are
one and the same thing; the same processby which we establishthe conception of nature leads us on to establishthe conceptionof beauty, or of artistic
perfection,and to recognizeit as historicallymanifestin Roman art. Granted
that the investigationof natureand the investigationof historyare inseparable,
the problem, which has tormented modern idealist critics, of the relatiors
between pictorialand scientificperspective,or more simply between art and
science, at the beginning of the Renaissance,loses its importance. It has
alreadybeen remarkedthat perspectiveis not a constantlaw, but a moment
in the historyof the idea of space: whenceit followsthat the problemof sight,
in passingfromoptics to geometry,passesfromthe objectiveto the subjective
sphere.l It is certain, in any case, that the conception of the homogenous
quality of space is firstset forthin the figurativearts, and then, consequently,
in the physicaland mathematicalsciersces.2
To our modern consciousnessit seems obvious that, if the opposite had
occurred,art would have lost all creativepower in the mechanicalprocesses
of application and deduction. In judging thus it assumes as an absolute
principle a characteristicpeculiar to Renaissance art, and fails to see its
historical significance: before the Renaissancethe value of art lay not in
creation, but in repetition,irs continuingthe traditionby remainingwithirs
it, instead of breakingout of it in order to renew it. The value of creativity
which the zesthetictheory of the Renaissancerecognizesin artistic achievement, derivesfrom the idea that nature is orderedand thereforecreated by
the artist. The novelty or originalityof a work of art is such only in so far
as the workof art emergesfromtradition,and in emergingfromit, contradicts
it; and since traditionis no longer a dogma, but an object of criticism,there
can be neitherinventionnor creationexcept throughthe mediumof a critical
G. Nicco,op.cit.,p. 29.
tion of reality, E. Panofsky'sessay "Die
For the systematicexpositionof the Perspective
als symbolische
Form"(Vortrage
problemof centralperspective
as an abstrac- derBibl.Warburg,
IV, I924-25) iS essential.
2

THE ARCHITECTURE OF BRUNELLESCHI

IOI

approach to tradition. The orderingor creation of nature is thereforenot

an act of authoritybut an act of reason. The powerof inventionor of creation
comes to the artist not from the grace of God, but from the integrity of his
own consciousness,from the lucidity of his historicalvision.
Cenninican take pleasurein makingclear his own descentfrom Giotto by
way of arsuninterruptedtraditiorsthat passesthrough Agnolo and Taddeo
Gaddi; for the artistsof the Quattrocento,beginningat Masaccio,Giotto is
the great, isolated protagonistof the Trecento: the traditionthat originated
in his art merelyalteredand obscuredits value, a value which criticismalone
shoulddetermine. Even for Giotto art was mechanical,a craftsman'slabour;
but the judgment of posterity recognizesin that 'Cfare" an ideal aim, which
it denies to that of imitatorsand followers,from the very fact that they are
such. To this "making"or "producing"the art of the Renaissanceopposes
not abstractspeculationbut "genius,""invention";1the artistin the process
of inventionis consciousof the novelty of what he is doing, and so invention
is a "making"accompaniedby judgment or the attributionof value.
There thus arises the idea of the artist-hero,a coryphaeusor protagonist
of history; but he is this in so far as he is consciousof the value of his own
activity, that is, in so far as he is himself an historian. His work breaksthe
continuity of tradition to justify itself in history,just as it emergesfrom the
confusionof matter to justify itself in nature. The mental processwhich, in
the same act, eliminatesmatter and chronicle(or tradition)by judging them
as values, is, as we have said, perspective. This processis clearly described
by Alberti. RememberGhiberti'sdictum: "nothing can be seen except by
light." Though it is here consideredas a physicalphenomenon,this light is
still a divine emanationor irradiation,a first cause which is reflectedin all
things and reveals them. Alberti on the contrarywishes to clarify the idea
of things:"we call that a thing which occupiesa place." Glearlyif anything
in nature exists in space, space also is nature; in fact it is the principle of
nature since the place which things occupy is necessarilyantecedent to the
things. This may seem to imply a seriousobjection to the necessity,which
Alberti categoricallyaffirms,of limiting the domain of art to the visible. We
must deduce from it that the experienceof the senses is not primary, but
secondary. Reason is thereforethe basis of life, even of the life of the senses.
In fact: "large, small3 long, short, high, low, wide, narrow, light, dark,
luminous,shadowyand all qualitiesof that kind-which becausethey may or
may not be added unto things, the philosophersare wont to call accidentsare such that all knowledgeof them is made by comparison." It is therefore
by reasoningthat the accidentsare distinguishedfrom the substanceof things.
But this substance is not, as has been assumed, their plastic form, their
volume: volume is perceivedthroughthe medium of light and shade, height
and width, and these qualities, too, have been placed among the accidents.
1 In Albertianterminologythe facultythat
simultaneouslyinvestigatesand invents,or in
other words sums up and synthetizes the
moments of speculation and of action is
"ingegno." For the distinction between

"ingegno"and mathematicalrationality,and
for the necessity of artistic creation as an
expressionof the first, see Lionello Venturi,
Storiadellacriticad'arte,Italian ed., Florence,
I945,p.

I28.

GIULIO GARLO ARGAN

I02

Moreoverit is clearthat in makinghis catalogueof accidents,Albertiintended

to exhaust all the possibleformsof the visible. Strictly speaking,if a thing
had been strippedof all its accidents,nothing would remain of it except the
void in space left by its disappearance.1
But Albertiknowsthat if paintingis concernedonly with the visible, it is
impossibleto separatethe thing from its accidents: indeed the thing itself is
an accidentuntil it is known "by comparison":it would be illimitablywide
and illimitablylong, and illimitablydeep if we did not establishthe relation
betweenwidth, length, and depth; all dazzlinglight or impenetrabledarkness
if we did not establishthe relation between light and shade. We may say
thereforethat the idea or substanceof a thing is merely a positionin space,
but that positionis determinedpreciselyby the fact that it gives a situation
proportionately(ter comparatione) to all the accidents,that is to say, because
it re-absorbsand eliminatesthe matter of which the thing is composedinto
a systemof proportionalrelations.
This is indeed the functionof "design." The graphicoutline is originally
linked with the colouristicmatteras a boundarybetweenzones of colour: in
the Trecentesquetraditionit was purelya rhythmicpatternor a narrativein
rhyme and that rhythmiccadence was still dependenton the relationof the
line to an alreadyformulatedcolouristicmodulation. For Albertithe outline
is the edge of the surface,that is the boundarybetweenfullnessand void; nor
can we say that it belongs more to the fullnessthan to the void (or more to
the thing than to space) becauseits functionis preciselythat of mediating,or
of acting as a link and solderbetween one and the other. As has been seen,
in fact, emptinesscannot be thought of apart from fullness,nor can space be
conceivedof separatelyfrom the things that occupy it. (WhenMasolinoor
Paolo Uccello wish to representthe void independentlyof the full, they
reduce perspectiveto the Trecentesqueidea of infinitespatiality.) The need
now becomesclear for a recourseto Euclideangeometryor to the Platonic
descriptionof geometricalforms as perfectforms or ideas archetypesfrom
which all sensibleformsare derived: geometricalformsare pure spatial sites
or pure metrical relationswhich in their own finitude expressthe whole of
space. It is not by chance that Alberti definesdesign in the same words as
thosewhichhis master,FrancescoFilelfo,usedin definingthe idea as described
by Plato: a representation"ab omni materiaseparata."
The conceptionof design,as the commonroot of all the arts, that is, as the
designationof the absolutevalue of form, is thereforevery closely related to
the conceptionof perspective:perspectiveis actually the method of design,
in so far as it is absoluterepresentation. It is superfluousto point out that
representationand inventionmay be equivalentterms: becausethere can be
1 On the impossibilityof imaginingspace
as erepty, or as an "enclosingmedium that
enclosesnothing"see Cassirer,op. cit., p. 285.
Alberti's conception of cognitioneper comparatione,the basis of the theory of proportion, is certainlyrelatedto the idea expressed
by Cusanus (De Docta Ignorantia I . I ):
"Comparativaest omnis inquisitio, medio
proportionisutens." On the greatimportance

of the thoughtof Cusanus,who was in Italy

in the early decades of the Isth cent. and
who certainly knew Alberti, see, besides
Cassirer'sfundamentalwork, G. Nicco, op.
cit. To G. Nicco, too, we owe a notableessay
on the developmentof perspectivetheory in
treatises from Euclid to Piero della Francesca, Le Arti, V, I942, no. 2, p. 59.

OF BRUNELLESCHI
THE ARCHITECTURE

I03

no representation,but only mechanicalimitation,if the imagedoes not wholly

replace the object and become a substitute for it as a value or authentic
reality,just as nature,as a representationof reality,becomesthe one authentic
reality for the thought of the Renaissance.
II
If we admit that the artisticprocesshas a basis of historicalthought, the
originof the fundamentalideas of RenaissanceArt-perspective and designmust be sought in the work of an artist-hero:only throughsuch a medium
could these ideas have any positiveeffect on the subsequentcourseof artistic
development. The "trattatid'arte" themselves,though ostensiblyconcerned
with a theoreticaldefinitionof the idea of art, are in realitythe firstattempts
at a historyof art as a historyof the artists,becausetheir criterionis no other
than a generalizationfrom those works of art in which they perceive an
absolutevalue. The formulationof the principleof perspective,or the invention of perspective,are ascribedby general consent to Brunelleschi:the first
personof that artistictrinitywhich is completedby Donatelloand Masaccio.
On this point Manetti is uncompromising:"in those times he brought to
light and himselfput into practicethat which paintersto-day call perspective
because it is a part of the science that consistsin placing those diminutions
and enlargementsthat appearto men's eyes from afar or close at hand, both
skilfullyand fittingly. . . and fromhim originatedthe rule which is the meaning of all that has been done from that time to this."
It is interestingto note the distinctionthat Manetti makes between the
originatingintuition of Brunelleschiand the codificationor applicationof it
which the "dipintori"have successively("oggi")drawnfrom it. The distinction is not purely chronological. For the painters,perspectiveis the law for
making"housesand plainsand mountainsand landscapesof every kind, and
in everyplace, with figuresand otherthingsof such a size as befitsthe distance
fromwhichthey are observed." Had Brunelleschielaboratedthis rule as a law
of vision, Manetti would not have so accurately distinguishedthe Brunelleschian principle from the interpretationwhich has later been given to it
by other painters, who have applied it to a considerationof the external
world that has clearly no connection with architecture. It is thus impossible to distinguishBrunelleschi'sresearcheson perspectivefrom his artistic
activity, that is to say, fromhis architecture:it is from this, as Manettipoints
out, that the painters deduce their law of vision. This means that, since
architectureis free of any necessityto "imitate"reality, the formaldiscipline
of architecturemust precedeand conditionthe painter'scontactwith reality;
he will indeed study reality, becausethe painter'srealm is the visible world,
but he will do so through the formal patternsof architecture. This is, we
think, the historicalorigin of the principle that architectureis the basis or
mother of all the arts: a principleeasily reducibleto the other (of design as
the common root of all the arts), which will be clearly formulatedin the
Cinquecento. Architecture,indeed, as an art free from any necessity of
imitatingreality,is designitself: representationseparatefrom"ogni materia."

Io4

GIULIO CARLO ARGAN

It is now necessaryto see how this law "whichis the meaningof all that has
been done from that time to this" was developed in the architectureof
Brunelleschi.
Manetti, a mathematician,says of perspective:"not without reason,just
now did I call it science,"for scienceis making"accordingto law." The Life
of Manetti is of later date than the Pitturaof Alberti and is largely indebted
to it; and one of the most importantinnovations,in Alberti's treatise,was
perhapsthat idea of "knowledgeby comparison"which emergesin opposition to the Scholasticconceptionof knowledgeas scireper causas. Since the
Pitturaof Alberti consists of reflectionson the great Masters of the early
Quattrocento,and particularlyon Brunelleschi,it is to the latter that we may
attribute, not perhaps the formulation,but the first understandingof that
principlewhich for causes, understoodas externalmoving forces,substitutes
laws, understoodas immanentcauses which are producedby the reciprocal
co-relation of phenomena. In the architectureof Brunelleschi,therefore,
must be sought the first understandingof design as an act of knowledgeor
cognitione
per comparatione,
that is, the first laying down of that theoryof proportion, which in its turn becomesthe basic criterionfor the understanding
of ancient art.
That Brunelleschihad undertakensome inquiry into the laws of vision
may well be inferredfrom what Manetti tells us of the two panels on which
Brunelleschihad depictedthe Baptisteryand the Palazzodella Signoria. Yet
the very objects depicted, buildings and not landscapes,suggest that these
studieswere not connectedwith the formulationof a generaltheory,but with
the concrete,particularfigurativeand architectonicinterestsof the artist.
Of the first of these two panels we know that the spectatorhad to look
at it reflectedin a mirror,throughan openingcut in the wood, at a distance
proportionateto that at which the painterhad placed himselfwhile at work:
moreover,insteadof a paintedsky therewas a backgroundof burnishedsilver
which reflected the real sky with its clouds moving before the wind. The
second panel, on the other hand, being too large to permit the use of this
device, was cut out along the line of the rooftops, and one loooked at it
againsta backgroundof sky.
Manetti'sdescriptionis enough to show that the genesis of several ideas
on which Alberti was later to build up his perspectivetheory can be traced
back to Brunelleschi.By meansof the device of the hole in the middle of the
picture,the spectatorwas constrainedto look at the painting,reflectedin the
mirror,from the same point of view as that in which the painterhad placed
himself. The straightline which connectsthe painter'seye with the centre of
the thing depicted is alreadywhat Alberti will define as a centricray: that is
the axis of the visual pyramidwhose apex coincideswith vanishingpoint.
So far we are still within the domainof vision, though it is even now most
important to observe that for Brunelleschiit is essential that vision should
have a single and constant point of view: hence the immobility and impartiality of the artist face to face with truth. But the painting must be
looked at in a mirror; and this is not merely an artifice for making the
spectator'spoint of view coincidewith that of the painter. Alberti, who was
certainlyfamiliarwith Brunelleschi'sessaysin perspective,in fact advisesthe

THE ARCHITECTURE OF BRUNELLESCHI

Io5

painterto make use of the mirroras a meansof checkingthe artisticqualities

of his painting. Whenhe speaksof obtainingan effect of reliefby the proportionate use of light and shade, Alberti advises: "and you will find in the
mirror a good judge; for, as I know how things that are well painted may
have great beauty in the mirror,so it is marvellousto see how every fault in
painting shows itself more ugly in the mirror. So let the mirrorcorrectthe
things which you have taken from nature." It is well known that the mirror
reversesthe image: if the image is unsymmetricalthe mirrorwill make this
defect more apparent,becauseit removesit from a positionto which the eye
has grownaccustomed:if, on the contrary,the imageis perfectlysymmetrical,
reversalwill not be able to modifyit. In otherterms:if the painterhas clearly
determinedand constantlymaintainedhis point of view, the centric ray of
the directvision and that of the reflectedvision will coincide,while otherwise
they will diverge. The question, it will be seen, is one of symmetry and
proportion.
Anotherimportantpoint: Brunelleschidoes not paint the sky. In the first
panel he reflectsit in a mirror-likesurface,in the secondhe cuts out the wood
so that the real sky can insert itself into the picture. His interestthereforeis
limited to things which as Alberti will say, occupy "a place": the sky does
not occupy "a place" and cannot be reduced to measure or known "per
comparatione." Since it cannot be represented,but only imitated, the artist
forbearsto paint it. The strictlogic of the argumentis unexceptionable:but
it is the argumentof an architectand not of a painter. If Filippo had wished
to lay down a generallaw of vision, and one that would thereforebe equally
valid for the vision of landscape,he could not have failed to take the sky into
account. He does not take it into account because his reasoningis related
only to architecture,which is a finite space, that, by its own finitudeor proportion,givesdefinitionalso to the spatialatmospherein whichit is immersed;
and he forbearsto paint the sky becausebuildingsstand out againstthe real
sky and not againsta painted background. It remainsto be seen what value
Brunelleschiattributedto these exercisesin perspective. It is clear that they
had a demonstrativeor, as we should say now, a polemical aim. Such
polemicscould only have been directedagainst the art of the late Trecento
tradition,for one thing becausethese pictorialessaysbelong to the firstphase
of the Master'sactivity, between the last years of the fourteenthand the first
of the succeeding century. To those painters who were intent only on
decoration,Brunelleschiwished to demonstratepainting as an instrumentof
knowledge. One might even ask oneself whether, in that atmosphereof
naturalistic propaganda, the happy invention of the silvery background
which reflects the light of the physical heavens, may not perhaps imply a
satirical and almost irreligiousallusion to those shining backgroundsof fine
gold in which the devout paintersof the traditionsoughtto mirrorthe mystic
light of God.
The technical "miracle"of the dome of Santa Maria del Fiore (P1. 7a)
has distractedcritics not a little from the significancewhich that long and
strenuousconstructivelabour holds in the art of Brunelleschi. Since it is

CARLO ARGAN
GIULIO

of
to make the dome in the form
planned
the
originally
out
had
carry
that Filippo
known
did he decide to
seem
and that only on secondthoughts
ahemisphere,
problemof the dome would
the
model,
it
Arnolfo's
vaulting
in
of
laid down
scheme
of technique: the method
question
mere
a
to
be
toreduced
by tlle usual
scaffiolding.
without
to realizeArnolfo'splan
impossible
Quattrotechnically
the
of
Wasit really
in those first decades
that,
believe
it is
easily
scale;
a
may
vast
One
on so
means?
vaulting
build
to
dared
no artist would have throughoutthe Trecento,when decorationtook
cento,
highly probablethat
falling-offin constructive
indeed
there may have been acan
construction,
of
have planned, and his
precedence
Arnolfo
that
believe
to
But it is impossible drum, a buildingwhich the technicalresources
skill.
raisedas far as the
successors
them to roof over.
using the traditional
ofthetime did not permit
never even thought of of
Brunelleschi
more,
is
What
the idea building the dome
mind
in
had
he
outset
envisaged,but
From the
technique.
up the form he had first
give
might
he
scaffolding;
Only a mistakenestimate
without
construction.
of
method
vault
his
not give up
hewould
belief that the spherical
the
induced
has
we
When
"classicism"
ofBrunelleschi's
to contingent needs.
sacrificed
later
had
ideal,
scaffolding
a formal
represented
of vaulting the dome without
method
the
questionare
the
that
of
terms
remember
domes, the
circular
first of
Roman
the
deduced from
been
is that Filippo had thought
hypothesis
evolved
reasonable
had
the most
reversed:
such models that he had become
vault because it was from
he
asemi-circular
later to Arnolfo'splan when
with ribs
domes
to
system,and that he returned
applied
his
well be
equally
might
of Samsystem
the
that
persuaded
the conclusiveresearches
which
method,
with
This
dome
the
pointed arches.
and
consistsin walling
origin,
Roman
of
be
formal
to
have shown
paolesil
pattern. Brunelleschi's
span: it
of bricks disposedin a herring-bone
courses
pointed arch or of the single
the
of
of
pattern
the
process
in
the
end
did not
ideal
sustainingitself throughout
of
in
capable
itself
form
a
of
disposing
of
the ideal
was
the force that sustainsit, and vitality, by its
itsown growth, of producing
coherence
interior structural mernbers."
spaceby virtue of its own
like that of "bones and
in Santa Maria del
applied
naturalproportionality,
is
construction
of
The herring-bonemethod than it is in any of the ancient models, that is
Fiore,on a much largerscaleof the drum already constructed.The problem
to protosay, to the measurementsthereforein reducinga gothic dimension
the
setby Brunelleschiconsistedof self-support,that is of the autonomy of not
justification
throughthe principle
j1ortion
vault of the dome finds a "so that it may
double
the
Thus
space.
Filippo
formin
(in the actual words of the need for establishonlypracticalbut figurative
splendid"): the artist feels
appearmore enlargedand the formof the dome and the variousproperties
the curvatureof the surfaces
ingan exact relationbetween
interior
the
In
it.
in
up
of the
ofspacethat are summed
the various spatial trends
co-ordinates
and
up
of the octagon, sums
the studiesconparticularlyon the dome, see
106

di
;Nazionale
di SantaMaria
1p. Sampaolesi,La Cupola Istituto di tained in Atti del I Congresso
in
Florence
held at
la costruzione,
Storia dell'Architettura,
delFiore;il progetto,
Rome, I94I.
Sansoniin I938.
by
published
and
Archeologiae Storia dell'Arte,
but I936
problems,
Brunelleschian
On sundry

a Brunelleschi,Dome of Santa Mariadel Fiore, Florence(pp.

I05

ffs.)

b Lantern

a Brunelleschi,Pazzi Chapel,Florence(p. I09)

b Brunelleschi,Detail of FaKadeof Pazzi Chapel,

Florence (p. I og)

THE ARCHITECTURE OF BRUNELLESCHI

Io7

naves and the presbytery,as into a commonhorizon; on the exteriorthe ribs

mark the limit or the juncture between the massesof the building and the
circumambientspace. If the effect of the dome is spatial, the processwhich
leads to the definitionof space is a constructiveprocess. But this constructive
because its acts are no longer
labour differs from the mediaeval mechanica
repeatedby tradition,but determinedby reason: the coherencec?fthese acts
must there be referredto a rational principle. Manetti says that in Rome
Brunelleschi"saw the ancients'methodsof buildingand their symmetry;and
it seemed to him that he saw there very clearly a certain order, as of bones
and members." It is not a question of the generic anthropomorphismthat
recurs, following on the traces of Vitruvius, in the treatise writers of the
Renaissance:it is a questionof rationaldiscriminationbetween the elements
that bear and the elementsthat are borne, and of their distributionaccording
to order, that is accordingto symmetryand proportion.
In Romanesquearchitectureas in Gothic, the artisticideal to be realized,
though by differentfigurativemethods, is the effect of unlimited space. In
the first, weight prevails over strain, and the effect of space depends upon
mass; in the second, strain prevails over weight and the effect depends on
linear tension. In eithercase the motive forceis an energythat develops,and
tends to develop towardsthe infinite, but which finds a check and a determinationin matter. And matteris alreadyform,becauseif matterhas already
a spiritualquality of its own as a divine creation,we cannot conceive of any
form that transcendsit. Form, force, matter make up an indivisibleunity:
forceis not only relativeto the hardnessand the elasticityof matter,but also
to the thickness,the extension, the flexion, the outline, the section of the
elementin which it is expressed. One may arriveat length at the sublimation
of matter to such a point that a mass which physicallypresseson the ground
can expressan ascent; none the less, form remainsa quality of matter, howbeit a supernaturalone, a revelation of its inner spirituality. A Gothic
cathedral tends in fact to be a compendiumof all knowledge,that is of all
reality; and this not only, as Male has observed,in its decorativedetails but
in its deepest structuralintentions. Since reality is the infinite in terms of
individualthings, it is expressedin architectureby individualforces: Gothic
architectureis in fact the architectureof the individualizationof forces.
Even the historicalinterest that attracts Brunelleschito a study of the
antique would have no justificationif he had not sought in antique art for a
standardof comparisonin the criticismof tradition, that is for a means of
freeinghimselffroma traditionthat was still alive: historyis alwaysa criticism
and an overcoming of tradition. Moreover, the very fact that the need
was felt for a spatial definitionwhich should include and resolve the whole
problem of reality, necessarilypresupposesthe experience of Romanesque
and Gothic spatialityas the expressionof infinite reality; this was the matter
which had to be reducedinto measure.Brunelleschi'smentalprocessin regard
to traditionis alreadythat which MarsilioFicinowill definein Platonicterms:
"in corporeanimus a singulisad species, a specibustransit ad rationes"; or
since we are dealing with architecture,from individual forcesto classesand
from classes to systems. To group several forces together into a class it is
necessaryto define their quantity and quality; thus it happens that we are

Io8

GIULIO CARLO ARGAN

no longer dealing with forcesin action or in development,such as strainand

stress,but with those that are developed or in equilibrium,such as weight
which has its exactly correspondingresistance. One might say, paraphrasing
Alberti, that our "knowledge"of forcesis reachedby "comparison,"that is
by their reciprocallimitingsand oppositionsor by their reciprocal"proportioning" of each other. Only when the dramaticconflict of forceshas been
exhausted,only, that is, when a catharsishas been achieved,will architecture
cease to be a fragmentof reality,and becomea representationof reality. And
since experience which here means the experienceof Gothic architecture,
in which the force of an element is in proportionto its "momento"or to its
extensionand duration taught that the strengthof a force is relative to a
space, to constant forces there must thereforecorrespondconstantintervals.
This constancyof the relation between force and interval is the quality of
the single span arch as opposedto the pointed one. To comparethe single
span with the pointed arch it was not necessaryto go back to Vitruviusand
to ancient monuments:Tuscan Romanesquearchitecturewas enough. Yet
the arcadesof the Loggia degli Innocentiwith their very wide and extended
span, are undoubtedlymuch more akin to the arches of the Loggia della
Signoriaand even to the ogival archesof S. MariaNovella and S. Mariadel
Fiore than to those of the church of the SS. Apostoli or of Roman monuments. In the latter, indeed, the function of support is translatedinto an
equilibriumbetweenthe massesof fullnessand of emptiness;in the formerthe
line has a value of its own as a supremeformaldeclarationof spatialinfinity.
This is the value to which Brunelleschiwould give a clear definition,measuring the depth of the void by the actual outline of the arch. He reflectsthat in
the single span arch, all pointsof the semicircleare equi-distantin relationto
vanishingpoint, that is in relationto the apex of a half cone having its base
within the semicircleitself: thereforethe width of the curve is relativeto the
depth of the extensionof the arch instead of to the weight which it sustains.
The archis thereforealwaysan "intercisione,""primopiano,"in a perspective
progressionwhich has its term at vanishingpoint; the curve of the arch, as
a projectionof depth on a plane surface,has thus the value of a horizon.
For Brunelleschitoo, as for Donatello and Masaccio,Romanitas
is in the
firstinstance"toscanita:" the definitionof his own historicalcharacterbegins
with that of his own natural character. If, in determiningthe spatial value
of the arch he relies on Tuscan Gothic architecture,in determining the
spatial value of the plane he relies on the more remote practice of Tuscan
Romanesque architecture. It would be interesting to know whether the
opinionsexpressedby Manettiin his excursus
on the decadenceof architecture
in the Middle Ages are entirelyhis own, or whetherthey go back, in part at
least, to Brunelleschi:it is anyhow significant, that in certain Florentine
Romanesquebuildingshe shouldsee some reflectionof classicsplendour,and
shouldattributethem, by an errorfull of meaning,to the Carolingianperiod,
that is to the time of the most intense classicalrevival of the Middle Ages.
Brunelleschi'sarchitecturepreservesmorethan one reminiscenceof the marble
inlaysthat adornedthe wallsof FlorentineRomanesquechurches,for example
in the pure "scrittura"of space on the flat surfaceby means of grey pilasters
and arcadeson a white background.One might even ventureto interpretthe

THE ARCHITECTURE OF BRUNELLESCHI

IO9

faSadeof the Pazzi Chapel(P1.8a) as a developmentof the spatialthemeof the

Romanesqueinlays. One might point out that the artisthad arrivedthrough
the exerciseof a subtledialectic,at that absoluterepresentationof spacein the
flat, by identifyinglinearand chromaticvalues; and that in this mutualidentification,the linearelementis purgedof the materialqualityof the outlinejust
as the chromatic element is purged of the material quality of the surface.
INhebean-patternfrieze, the grooved pilastersare far from being a simple
reproductionof the antique: they are an alternation,almost a vibration, of
ligllt and shade (P1.8b). Preciselybecausethis plane generateslight fromthe
frequencyof its relationsof light and shade, it may be distinguishedfrom the
surface,which is always a defence in relation to an externalsourceof light,
ancl becomes identified with the totality of space. And perhaps this is the
"intellectual"sourceof that light which in Piero della Francescais no longer
physical but spatial. The FlorentineRomanesqueinlays were undoubtedly
a sign of a return to the fountain-headof the Byzantinetradition,perhaps
even of an obstinate Tuscan resistanceto the renewing tide of Lombard
architecture. By means of these inlays an attempt was made to resolve the
effect of space which Lombard architectureenclosed within the complex
articulationof its masses,into chromatictermson a flat surface.l Geometrical
forms, while eliminating any modulationin colouristicrelations within the
design, employed colours in absolute terms of contrast on the surface: no
spatial hypothesisis possiblebeyond a strict equation of the opposingterms
of surfaceand depth. A mostsubtleand intimatelyPlatonicprocessofthought
warns the artist that if he thinksof space as possessinginfinite depth, he will
find it quite impossible to distinguish it from the surface: therefore the
infinityof space cannot be a sensorzr
perceptionor an "effect,"but a conceptual representationor a "cause," such as are for instance the figures of
geometry. In this mediaevalTuscan Platonismthere are alreadyto be found
the premisesof the transcendentallogic of a great German Platonistof the
fifteenth century, Cusanus.
For Brunelleschithe plane is the place on which there occursthe projection or definitionof depth, not as an effect, but as pure value or geometric
form. Thereforethe place is a pure mental abstraction,the preconditionfor
the representationof space. Albertiwill translatethisintuitionof Brunelleschi's
into a formula: the surfaceis still matter, and as it were the outer skin of
things,althoughit is the extremelimit of matter,its suturewith space; instead
the plane is a geometricentity, the "intersection"of the visual pyramid. In
fact the plane in Brunelleschi'sarchitectureis an "intersection"and not a
surface;it is the place on to which the variousspatialdistancesare projected,
and on which the infinitedimensionsof space are reducedto the three dimensionsof perspectivespace. Since on the plane thesedistancescannotbe valued
as effects (for they would be chaoticallysuperimposedone upon another)but
only as measllrements,the plane is the condition of their "cognitione per
comparationeX' that is to say of their proportionality.
1 For a fuller analysisof the formalvalues manicae Romanica,Florence,Nemi, I936, and
of Romanesqueand Gothic architecturein L'Architettura
italianadel Duecentoe del frecento,
Tuscany I refer the reader to my two Florence, Nemi, I937.
volumes, L'ArchitetturaProtocristiana,Prero-

I IO

GIULIO GARLO ARGAN

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

the plane has its point of referencein a correspondingvalue of depth in the
porticoor the interior,and is a projectionof this: hence the lack of an effective
articulationof the parts which are elementsof limitation and not elements
of force, and the compositionof the plane in squaresand recesses(P1. ga)
"All surfacesof a body that are simultaneouslyvisible,"Albertiexplains,"wili
form a pyramid composedof as many lesser facets as there are surfacesin
the thing seen." It is the principle of the homogeneityof space. But the
principle of the homogeneityof space destroysthat of the homogeneityof
matter:for in orderto thinkof spaceas homogenous,that is, as uninterrupted
by the presenceof bodies, it is necessaryto think of those bodies as composed
of space,that is as brokenup into a successionof planes. Giventhis distinction
between the plane, as a completerepresentationof space, and the surface,it
is hard to accept the ingenious thesis of L. H. Heydenreichlwho makes a
sharpdistinctionbetweenthe firstand secondphasesof Brunelleschi'sactivity,
between the moment of the Wandbauten
and that of the Pfeilerkomvtraktionen,
or between the period when the wall is only a raumbegrenzende
Schaleand
that irl which it arrivesat a raumbildende
Funktion.The cause of this sudden
stylistic evolution is said to be the journey to Rome, which Heydenreich
postponesto the years between I432 and I434; but the later researchesof
Sampaolesifix the date conclusivelyat a time previousto the beginning of
work on the dome. In fact there is a completecoherencebetween the works
of the firstand secondperiods:the problemof Brunelleschi'sartisticdevelopment does not so muchconsistin determiningthe date ofthe journeyto Rome,
as in forminga preciseestimateof his relationswith Donatelloand Masaccio,
which were undoubtedlyclose and reciprocal.
Accordingto Heydenreich'stheoryBrunelleschi'sartisticdevelopmentcan
be codified into the artist'sprogressiveabandonmentof building to a longitudinal plan, for building to a central plan, which is the classic schemepar
excellence, the most rigorous and systematic application of the Vitruvian
theory of the module. In reality, if one starts from the spatial premisesof
Brunelleschithe two plans cannot be so sharply differentiated:on the contrary, they completeeach other by turns. And here again we find, as fundamental, the practice of Gothic architecture,which so often unites the two
plans or imposesone upon the other. The dome of S. Mariadel Fioreis itself
conceived as a co-ordinationor synthesisof the longitudinaldepths of the
naves and the stellatespacesof the octagon.
Both the Sacristyof S. Lorenzoand the Pazzi Chapelare typicalexamples
of the synthesisbetweena longitudinalplan and a centralplan. In the Pazzi
Chapel (P1. gb), for instance, the simple tracing of an entablatureand an
arcadeon the planecarriesthe depthof the squaredapseon to the longitudinal
walls: in the sameway the depthof the windowsopeningto the frontis graphically repeatedbetweenthe sunkpilasters. Everyplane has thereforethe same
"content"of space. This solutionis perfectlylogical, becausestrictlyspeaking
a figure in plane geometryis no less representativeof space than a figurein
solid geometry: indeed the hemisphericaldome has the same function of
1 L. H. Heydenreich,"SpatwerkeBrunel- lungen,I93I.
leschis,"JahrbuchderPreussischen
Kunstsamm-

a Brunelleschi,Portico of Pazzi Chapel, Florence

(p.

I I O)

b Brunelleschi,Interiorof Pazzi Chapel,Florence(p. I I O)

a Brunelleschi5
San Lorenzo,Florence(p. I I 2)

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

THE ARCHITECTURE OF BRUNELLESCHI

III

summingup and concludingthe contrastsbetween actual depth and depth

graphically represented. Architecture, therefore, is not an abstract and
symbolicrepresentationof naturalisticspace; on the contraryit is the material
quality of the mural constructionwhich is transformedinto space by the
rationalityof the constructiveprocess.In other terms,it is the space implicit
in the constructionas an "effect," which is transformedinto space-the
"cause" of architecture. Space, as pure representation,has therefore a
catharticvalue as regardsthe realistic,dramatic,strugglebetween force and
of the construction.
matter, that is as regardsthe mechanics
But the problem remainssubstantiallyunchangedwhen one passes from
these centralized longitudinal constructionsto a genuine centralized construction,the unfinishedRotonda degli Angeli.l The plan provided for an
octagonal building, with pilastersand radial chapels. The end walls of the
chapelswere flat, the side walls hollowedout into niches. If Brunelleschihad
imagined the building as the co-ordinationof lesser concaves to the major
concaves of the central space and of the dome, he would logically have
developedthe end walls of the chapelsinto niches too. Since these end walls

Eam

4,fg5a.

Plan and Section of S. Maria degli Angeli, Florence(FromMarchini'sreconstruction).

are flat, vanisilingpoint will always fall on the plane, whateverthe point of
view: the extreme limit of space wlll always be a plane and not an atmospheric hollow. Hence one may deduce that the Rotonda degli Angeli is a
centralized constructiondeveloped or adjusted according to a longitudinal
vision; the very perspectivecurvatureof the lateral niches of the chapels
tends to resolveitself into a single vanishingpoint, to bring it into focus or
centreit on the end plane. This is perhapsthe culminationof the sarstematic
AXzionale
1 For a reconstructionof the originalplan degli Angeli," Atti dsl I Congresso
Florence, Sansoni,
see G. Marchini,"Un disegnodi Giulianodi di Storiadell'Architettura,
Sangalloriproducentel'alzato della Rotonda I938, p. I47.

I I2

GIULIO CARLO ARGAN

search for a synthesisof the two spatial formult of tradition. Brunelleschi

knowsthat space is not an effect, but a cause or law alike of the central and
of the longitudinalscheme: that is to say, he strivesto deduce a single law
from the two differentspatial effects or the two essentialdata of the traditional phenomenologyof space.l
It is indeedworthyof note that the plan of the lanternof the dome (Pl. 7b),
one of the Master's last works, repeats almost exactly the plan of the
Rotonda degli Angeli.2 When one considersthat the lantern is a structure
opened and imposedin its completenessupon an intersectionof planes with
a commonsource,one may easily concludethat the problemof the Rotonda
is not one of co-ordinatedgravitationround a central axis, but one of the
disintegrationof massinto a complexof intersectingplanes: not the problem
of the mass that containsspace, but that of space which penetratesand dissolvesthe mass. Such, in fact, is the functionof the lanternin relationto the
dome: the buttressesof the lantern,which correspondto the ribsof the dome,
suggest the rotation of the mass in infinite space: and in that possibilityof
rotationis made clear the single end to which all the spatial elementsof the
building,in their proportionalrelations,may be reduced. As the dome proportionsthe mass of the building, so the lantern "proportions"the mass of
the dome to the infinity of space. The high and narrow windows of the
lantern accentuate the evidence of this pure intersectionof planes, and together with the niches hollowed out in the buttresses,and those of the
colonnade placed at the base of the drum, balance, by their concavity, the
dilatationof the dome: so that throughthis belatedrevisionit emergesindeed
"enlarged"to the utmostlimits of space.
A relationsimilarto that betweenthe Pazzi Chapeland the Rotondadegli
Angeli may also be pointedout betweenthe two great basilicalconstructions:
San Lorenzowith the simple plan of the Latin crossand Santo Spiritowhere
the colonnadesare also developedalong the walls of the transeptand of the
presbytery.In San Lorenzo(P1.I oa,b) the ratioof the archof the side chapels
1 On this point it is importantto note the northerntheorists,on the contrary,beauty,
contrastdrawn by Panofsky("Die Perspek- as a pure abstraction, transcends nature.
tive als symbolische Form") between the Hence it is legitimateto seekfor the previous
scenographyof Vitruvius as a winkelperspek-history of central perspectivein Gothic Art
tivischeSonstraktion,and central perspective with its tendencyto the infiniteprolongation
which assumesthe scene to be depictedon a of its lines (see besidesPanofsky,op.cit., G. I.
plane insteadof on a concavesurface. Sceno- Kern, "Die F,ntwicklungder zentral-pergraphy finds its typical expressionin the spektivischen Konstruktion in der Eurocentralizedplan (omniumlinearumad circini paischenMalereivon der Spatantikebis zur
centrumresponsus). Thereforeclassicalart Mitte des XV Jahrhunderts,"Forschungen
u.
was einereineKorperkunst
I937):
it is a searchwhich must,
and thoughtof space Fortschritte,
as "aggregato"(cf. Cassirer,op. cit., p. 285). however, resolve itself into demonstrating
The distinction between scenographyand that the artists of the early Isth century,
perspective correspondsto the distinction especiallyBrunelleschi,must have had a full
between perstectiva communisand perspectiva understandingof Gothic art.
artificialis,drawnin I505 by Jean Pelerinand
2 Heydenreich treats at length of the
immediatelyseizeduponby Durer(seeJ. von Rotonda degli Angeli, the lantern, and the
Schlosser,Die Kunstliteratur)
Schroll,Vienna, exedra of the dome in his highly important
I924,
p. 227).
This distinctionis not main- essay on the later work of Brunelleschiin
tained by the Italian theoristswho regard 3ahrbuchder PreussischenKunstsammlungen,
beauty as immanent in nature; in the I93I -

THE ARCHITECTURE OF BRUNELLESCHI

I I3

to the arch of the naves is as 3 to 5; thereforethe two archeshave a common

vanishingpoint and are two succeedingsectionsof the same visual pyramid.
Thus the depth of the chapelsis transmittedand resolvedthroughthe brick
vaultingof the extensioninto the archesof the centralnave. The threewallsof
the small chapelsare framedby stronglymodelledcornices:thus the wallsfall
into the backgroundin three directions,and the value of depth which cannot
be developed within such small dimensionsis condensedinto the modelling
of the cornices. In fact, if one imaginesa depth divided into equal spaces,it
is clear that, as we increase our distance, the spaces between member and
member become, when seen in perspective,thicker and closer: by making
the modelling of the members more complex, that is, by implicating the
intervalsor distanceswith the quality of the plastic objects,one will obtain,
in the actual form of the disposalof the membersthe representationof unplumbable depth. And how easy it is to see, and how easy it would be to
illustratewith precise examples, the same processat work in the low relief
of Donatello.
The successionof spaceswhich is projectedinto the arcadesof the central
aisle is thus a typicalperspectivesuccessionfrom the horizon(the end walls of
the chapels)to the foreground(the archof the nave). In SantoSpirito(P1.I I )
the ratio between the arch of the chapels and that of the nave is of I to I:
and the chapelsare reducedto the concavityof niches. So the lateral spaces
are not graduated perspectively,but directly inserted and articulatedinto
the archesof the nave. Everycolumnof the nave, to which therecorresponds
a half-columnin the side aisle, thus stands out in its plastic form, from the
concavity of tsvo contiguousniches. Not the parallel planes of the centre
aisle, but the plastic successionof arches and columnssums up the space of
the side aisles and of the chapels. In fact, if the artist in San Lorenzo has
given distinctsourcesof light to the centre aisle and the side aisles,if, that is,
he conceived them as distinct and co-ordinatedspatial entities, in Santo
Spirito, the side aisles have no source of light in themselves,because their
spaces constitutea single plastic organismwith the colonnadesof the centre
aisle. If in San Lorenzo the axis of the centre aisle was simply an axis of
symmetry for the proportional distribution of spatial intervals, in Santo
Spiritoit is the ground plan of the "centralized"vision. Space is no longer
graphicallydescribedin geometricalforms,but realizedin the proportionsmetrical, chiaroscuraland luminous-of plastic form.
So the columnitself acquiresvalue as a member;it is no longerthe cesura
placed between successive spatial intervals, but as Alberti would say a
thing that occupies "a place." In its proportions,or in the plastic quality of
its formit resolvesall the "accidents"of stress:its value in architecturehenceforthis that of a protagonistof space,as is that of the humanformin painting
and sculpture. The relation between the emergenceof the columnsand the
concavityofthe nichesin SantoSpiritois in fact, plasticallyand luministically,
a typically Masacciesquerelation.
Niches are thus the spatial Leitmotifof the later works of Brunelleschi.
But it is not a question of chiaroscuralor atmosphericvalues, of a mass of
void in oppositionto a mass of fullness. In Santo Spirito a window breaks
the continuityof the chiaroscuroof the curvedsurface:the nichesin the but-

I I4

GIULIO CARLO ARGAN

tressesof the lantern and those in the Rotonda are also open so as to avoid
a pictorialeffect of atmosphere. If, in fact, the spatial intervalbetween two
membersis plasticallyexpressedin the actual modellingof the membersthe
space enclosedbetweenthose two cannot be indefinite:the curveof the niche
gives a senseof indefinitespace, of somethingbeyond the horizon,of the sky.
In this senseit is a developmentof the conceptionof the plane as a representation of space, that is as a synthesisof depth and surface.
It is clear that a complete representationof space cannot admit a distinction between the space internal and the space external to the building:
hence that reciprocalintegration of internal and external which we have
already noted in the Pazzi Chapel, which was provided for in the original
plan of Santo Spirito, which is fully realizedin the open architectureof the
lantern and which is, above all, the centralproblemin the long constructive
meditationson the dome of Santa Maria del Fiore. The building is now
conceived as a pure structurewhich insertsitself into empiric spatiality and
proportionsit, or reducesit to perspectivespace: like early exercisesin painting, the building is an instrumentof knowledge,the instrumentthat creates
perspective. In more general terms, the building is the instrumentwhich,
through the rationalityof its processof construction,transformsa confused
and unlimited reality into clear and orderednature. By this same process
the mediaevalmechanica,
which had reachedits loftiestexpressionin the free
play of forcesin infinitespatiality,becomesarsliberalis.
At this point there arisesthe problem,the analysisof which is precluded
by the limits of this study, of the value of modelling in the architectonic
membersof Brunelleschi:that is of the value of design as an expressionof
perspectivespace, and in generalas a spatialcalligraphyor language. If the
frameworkis in substance,no otherthan a "spatialobject"or a boundary(an
edge, as Albertiwill say a propos
of contourin painting) of the surface,which
graduallyincorporateswith itself and realizesin plastic termsall the various
spatialpositionsof that surface,we can aErm that Brunelleschi'ssearchfor the
"bonesand members"is the true historicalbasisof Quattrocentodesign: that
is of the line (thinkof Andreadel Castagnoand Pollaiulo)which, in the outline of a body and of a body in motion,that is with its forcesat their utmost
tension impliesthe whole of space. That is why Brunelleschi'sarchitecture,
confrontingthe problemof the figurativetraditionin all its aspects,is at once
architecture,painting and sculpture: that is to say, it resolvesthe mechanica
of the particulartechnicaltraditionsinto a unitaryconceptionof art. From
this moment art, which considersitself as a cognitiveactivity, can no longer
toleratea classificationof its formsaccordingto the quality of manuallabour
involved in them or accordingto their traditionalrange of expressiveness.
The discussionswhichfollowin the treatisesofthe Renaissanceon the qualities
peculiarto the variousartswill tend not so much to classifythem, as to relate
them in order of merit to a common ideal of art. This also explains why
Brunelleschi'sreferencesto the art of the Gothic tradition become more
frequentin the last period of his activity, in other wordswith the increaseof
his figurative experience; the case of Santo Spirito is typical, since it is
certainlythe most "classical"of Brunelleschi'sconstructionalideas and is yet,
at the same time, the most significantfruit of the artist'smeditatiorlson the

ll

a Brunelleschi,San Spirito,Florence(p. II3)

b Interiorof San Spirito(detail) (p. I I 3)

c Interiorof San Spirito (detail) (p. I I3)

a Ghiberti, Sacrifice of Abraham, Bargello

Florence(p. II6)

c-Donatello,
Florence (p.

David,
I I9)

Bargello,

b Brunelleschi,Sacrificeof Abraham,Bargello,
Florence(p. II5)

d Donatello, Herod's Feast, S. Giovanni, Siena (p.

II7)

THE ARCHITECTURE OF BRUNFsT4TaFjSCHI

I I5

most recent traditionof Tuscan architecture:the Cathedralof Orvieto, and

as Salmi has pointed out, the Cathedralof Siena.l Like every process of
historicalunderstanding,or, which is the same, of criticalreflection,the idea
of perspective,the more it is clarified and developed in the mind of the
artist, the more it enlargesthat mind to take in new experience.
The infinite world of reality which the art and thought of the Middle
Ages had discoveredand illumined by the light of grace, that whole world
in which the Trecento had beheld the course of man's strugglefor spiritual
salvation, could only have been eliminated by the substitutionof an arid
conceptualsystem; fromwhence would have emergednot a Renaissancebut
a darkerMiddle Age.
It is in the Trecento that line, which in the Byzantine tradition had
been pure arabesqueor a boundarybetween zones of colour, frees itself to
take on an intense descriptivevalue and to become the outline of things
animated by an eternal rhythm of movement, the very rhythm of their
and vanishing in the continuity of time. In architecture,line despcLssing
cribes the flow of forces, as in painting and sculptureit describesthe flow
offeelings. It is this line which, throughthe spatialabstractionof Brunelleschi,
becomes design in the art of the Renaissance. The line is a quality of the
thing; it belongsto and characterizesit. Design is a quality of space, as the
supremesynthesisor cause of things. That is why Albertipointsout that line
should not separate(or we shall fall back into the world of individualthings)
but shouldjoin or give proportion. Design is the framework,the articulation,
the structureof space. The processthat leads from reality or spatial infinity
to perspective,and fromperspectiveto design,is preciselythat which Marsilio
proclaimsas properto the animus in corpore (and the artist is in fact animus in
corpore in the highest sense): a progressfrom individualthings to speciesand
from species to rationes. Design, which Alberti identifieswith the Platonic
idea, is in fact the supremeratio.2
III
Since man too is, by his origins,a portion of reality, the rational process
of space is not applicable to external reality alone; it is the very processof
consciousnessand is thereforevalid forthe realityin which humanlife consists,
for the world of passionand sentiment. We proposeto point out brieflythe
ethical impulse behind this processof knowledge.
Manetti, speakingof the relief submittedby Brunelleschiin the competition for the Baptisterydoors (P1. I2b), observesthat everyonewas amazedby
the force and freedomof the "attitudes":"the attitudeof Abraham,the attitude of the fingerbeneathhis chin, his readiness,"and that of the angel "the
way in which he takeshis hand" etc. In this relief"thereis no memberthat is
not instinctwith spirit." He goes on to praiseFilippo for having finishedhis
1M. Salmi, "Note sulla chiesa di S. "Idea" cf. Panofsky,Idea and Lionello
di Storiadell'Ar-Venturi,StoriadellaCriticad'Arte,Florence,
Spirito,"AttidelI Congresso
I945, pp. I28 i.
Florence,I938, p. I59.
chitettura,
2For the developmentof design as an

II6

GIULIO CARLO ARGAN

story in a short time "becausehe was strongin the exerciseof his art" while
Ghiberti "did many times destroy and remakehis, both as a whole and in
parts"and completedhis work "in a great while."
Here are two opposite methods and two opposite results. Ghibertiproceeds slowly, perfectingthe details, Filippo executesswiftly and confidently:
in the former,ideation and execution are inseparableand develop side by
side, each furtheringthe other, in the latter, they are distinct and successive
moments. Lorenzo is the man of tradition,and the sourceof his inspirationis
in his own labouras a craftsman:Filippo is the modernman of will who first
plans and decidesand then executes. The resultappearsin the vital force of
the "attitudes,"the energy of the actions, the intensity ("spirito")of every
part: Abrahamhas decidedon the sacrificeand undertakesit without hesitation, but the will of the angel is in conflictwith his will. In Ghiberti'srelief
(P1.I2a), on the contrary,Abraham'saction is hesitant;it does not expressa
decision, but only a waveringintention: he seems to be delaying in order to
await the arrivalof the angel who is still far off in heaven. The time of the
drama is ill-definedbecause the space is ill-defined. The rock and the body
of Isaac are inclinedin oppositedirections:the obliquespur of rockseparates
the group of the sacrificefrom that of the servantswith the ass. These two
distinct zones correspondto different times: the anecdote of the servants
postponesthe imminenceof the drama. In Brunelleschi'srelief the line is
single because the space is single. From the two stooping servantsat the
bottom, the compositionrises into a pyramidwhose apex coincideswith the
most dramatic moment, the hand of the angel which grasps the arm of
Abraham. The movement,too, is single: the tensionof Abraham'sbody has
its releasein the figureof the servantdrinking,and the contortionof Isaac's
body is the culminatingpoint of the rhythmof anglesthat beginsin the figure
of the servantwho is extractinga thorn fromhis foot. A single concatenated
movement, like a swift play of light, simultaneouslyexpressesboth movements: Abrahamabout to strikeand the angel stoppinghim. The group of
servantswith the assis no longeranecdotal;fromthat foregroundthe dramatic
representationdevelops,with lightningforce, up to the-final gesture.
If the problem of the definitionof space is inseparablefrom that of the
artisticdevelopmentof the Master,we must conclude,given the date of this
relief, that the firstpostulatesof perspectiveare laid down in it. One of these
is the reductionof narrativeto drama, of temporalsuccessionto the unity of
place, of the evocation to the representationof an action.
The relief astoundedits contemporariesby what we shouldnowadayscall
its violent realism. In point of fact the novelty of the worklies in its strongly
marked archaic accent. The conventionalrhythmsof line and of delicate
chiaroscuroare brokenso as to give place to a hard cutting of planesto form
massesof alternatinglight and shade. This modellingand the forceand concatenationof the movementsare clear indications:Filippo, passingover the
Trecentesquetradition,had soughthis dramaticsourcesin GiovanniPisano:
the angel'sgestureitself, to quote only the dramaticclimax of the scene, has
its precedent in the Last Judgment of the Pisano pulpit. But in Giovanni
Pisanothe rhythmhad been swift, increasing,in continualtension: here the
moments of the story are distinguishedand individualized, but are seen

THE ARCHITEGTURE OF BRUNELLESCHI

I I7

simultaneouslyin their final resolution. The principleof "intersection",if we

are not mistaken,was applied to time beforeit was applied to space, unless
indeed the new idea of space is a consequenceof that sudden arrestationof
time.
The sculptureof Donatello is undoubtedlythe record of a new mode of
conceiving the dramatic quality of life. In Rome, Filippo, and Donatello
together sought out and measuredthe relics of Roman Art, but Donatello,
says his biographer,;'neveropened his eyes to architecture."Nor did Filippo
troubleto initiatehim into it, as though "he saw that Donato had no aptitude
therein." Vasari, in his turn, records that Filippo blamed his friend for
representingthe crucifiedChristin the form of a peasant. Filippo, who had
been thought too much of a realist by the judges in the competition,
found that Donatello sometimescarriedrealismto excess. Donatello'sworld
is in fact the world of feeling and of drama, the world of pure action: in his
sculpturea popular Tuscan ethosis exalted to the level of the classicalepos.
The passage of Manetti warns us, if such a warning is necessary,that
Donatello,who was of anythingbut a speculativetemperament,did not start
from theoreticpremises:yet he is undoubtedlythe first artist to constructa
figuredrepresentationperspectively. Oertell believes that he can place the
first determinationof vanishing point in the relief of St. George and the
Dragon, dated about I4I6. We instead, are concernedto show that in this
relief the recedingplanes of the cave and the portico, by contractingspace,
cause the flattened masses of the horse and its rider to stand out with an
effect of plastic emergence. Perspectivehas thereforea value of contrast,as
opposedto that whichit holds,for example,in the paintingof Masolino,where
it servesas guide to the rhythmicalignmentofthe figures. It proportionsboth
space and figures,contrastingthe figurewith space, or, since the figure is in
the foreground,contrastingsurfaceand depth.
A more preciseconstructionwith centralperspectivemay be found in the
reliefof Herod'sFeast, which can be dated between I425 and I427 (Pl. I 2d).
Vanishingpoint is clearly distinguishedin the middle of the central arcade,
and coincideswith the elbow of the viol-player;the architraves,the pilasters,
the flight of steps ascendingon the right, the ends of the beams set into the
pilastersall concur exactly at that point and determinean absoluteunity of
space. Nor has this architecturea generic function as a spatial site: it is a
complex, yet broken structure, that enters into the life of the action, distinguishesits episodes,and even, by its air of antique ruin, plays its part in
the pathos of the scene. In this, on the other hand, it is certainlypossibleto
distinguishvariousstagesof the narrative(the dance, the presentationof the
severed head, the different emotional reactions of the spectators); but the
action, in that single and co-active space, is itself single and its various
narrativephases,occurringin the same time and in the same space, become
a clash of passionsin action. The clash of passionsis expressedby the sharp
divergencesof the figureswhicll leave an empty space in the centre. The
figures move along intersectingpaths; they do not rest on predetermined
planes,but by their movementcreateopposingplanes,which meansthat they
1 R. Oertel, "Die Fruhwerke des Masac- I933*
cio," Marburgerjrahrbuch
fur Kunstze
issenschaft,

II8

GIULIO CAltLO ARGAN

define space in its three dimensions. Gothic rhythmdissolvedthe figureinto

the limitlessspace of the background;here Salome'slegs indicate a rotatory
movementin a directionopposite to that of the movementof the arms and
bust, and the soldierpresentingthe chargeris constructedon two planes at
right anglesto each otherwhichmakea sharpangleon the perpendicularthat
falls from the shouldersto the knee. The architecturewhich is developed
towardsthe centre in extendedfrontalplanes, growsthick with columnsand
pilastersat the sides, which means that it multipliesspatial suggestionsin
relationto the massof the figuresthat crowdto left and right. Spacedoesnot
containthesethings,it is the things which by their proportionalequilibrium
or, in this case, the figuresby the individual characterof their movements,
which define space. Light itself in this enclosedspace, circumscribedwithin
the limitsof an action, can no longerbreakin froman externalsource;it, too,
is a quality of things which is broken up into spatial planes; and in the
oppositionof those planes it too is dissolvedinto contrastingzones of light
and shade. It is no longer light that produceslight and shade, for it is produced by the intensity of that contrast, that is, it is inherent in the plastic
fact, or in form.
At this point we may legitimatelyask whether this conceptionof space
as somethingwhich is not reproducedby the work of art but as something
which the work of art itself disposes and realizes, had been reached by
Donatello independentlyor through the medium of Brunelleschi. In the
formercase the similarityofthe resultsobtainedwould be almostinexplicable;
in the latter the analogybetweenthe resultsmight suggestthe hypothesisthat
Brunelleschihad at some time formulateda generaltheoryof vision and that
Donatellohad subordinatedhis own artisticactivity to this theoreticdiscipleship.
Since perspectiveis not simply a theory, but is the essenceof the architecture of Brunelleschi,the Brunelleschi-Donatellorelationship,which certainly exists, is a figurativerelationship. In Herod'sFeast the massesof the
figuresclusteralong the sides of the centralspace,just as in Santo Spiritothe
spaces of the side aisles and chapels are resolvedinto the void of the centre
aisle; the whole scene is envisagedas a successionof parallel "intersections"
which are projectedon to-the foreground;space, as a comprehensivevoid,
annuls itself by implicatingitself with the modellingof the figures,just as it
does by implicatingitself with the modellingof the membersin the architecture of Filippo. It is perhapsthe first figuredwork in which perspectiveis
assumednot as a law, but as a value in the representation;and the hypothesis
that this representsthe point of contact between Brunelleschi'sarchitecture
and the now imminent painting of Masacciois not unreasonable. What is
the special pathos, the special dramatic exigency that sees in perspective
representationthe conditionneedful for its realization? What is the motive
behind this translationof the phases of the narrativefrom time to space, in
such a way that the importanceand the functionof each figurein the action
is determinedby its spatial situation,or ratherby the greateror less vigour
of its movementsas creatorsof space? It has alreadybeen pointed out that
this dramaticnecessitycorrespondsto a moralconceptionwhich distinguishes
decisionfrom relativeactivity, and the immediateand completefulfilmentof

THE ARCHITEGTURE OF BRUNELLESCHI

I I9

the one recognizesalso the rationaland moralvalidity of the other. To make

a fully mature decision means making clear to oneself the causes that lead
one to act: it means thereforejustifying one's action historically.In action,
all causes remote and immediate, direct and indirect, are simultaneously
broughtinto play in a mutual compensationor equilibriumwhich is already
proportioninnuce:in action, emotionalcausesare already,in fact, realizedor
resolvedjust as, in Brunelleschi'sarchitecture,all the forcesare alwaysrealized
or in equilibriumand never incompleteor in tension. Therefore,the action,
as an effect which exhaustsall causes,is alwayscathartic: it is representation
parexcellence.
This explains why the sculpture of Donatello develops in a
continuouscrescendoof dramatic intensity: the more intense the dramatic
action, the more full and completewil] be the catharsisand the loftierwill be
the degree of universalityor of classicalityattained. It explains, too, why
this dramatic quality can be realized equally in the pure movement of the
figuresalmost without spatial elements (example the reliefs on the pulpit
of San Lorenzo) or in pure perspectiveabstractionalmost free from figure
movements(example-the tondiof the life of St. John in the sacristy of San
Lorenzo). This moral conceptionis the basis of the typically Quattrocento
idea of the hero as the protagonistof a drama, or a being in whom great
physical pre-eminence,that is a fullnessof sensoryvitality, correspondsto a
the
clear consciousnessand a steadfast will: this is that animusin corpore,
knowledgeof which is the firststage of the supremeknowledgewhich is that
of the animus
separatus.
It will not then seem strangeto seek in the most typical, the almost symbolical, delineationof the heroic ideal of the Quattrocento-the "David" of
Donatello (P1. I2C) a complete transposition,and almost a transubstantiation, of perspectivespaceinto the humanform: the ideal originof the naturalof the Renaissance.In fact, in this statue,the delicate
istic anthropomorphism
modellingdoes not cut acrossthe movementin the anatomyof the figure,but
resolvesit into a linked balance of spatial allusion,of depth and emergence,
which are all subsequentlyresolved on the plane of intersection. This is
determinedby the shaft of light, which descendingfrom the brim of the hat,
falls at a tangent to the figure,waveringover the smoothsurfacesand barely
touching the chief points of emergence,to terminateat the base in the brief,
intense, pictorial episode of Goliath'shead. This complete identificationof
spaceand light explainswhy the alreadynoted crescendoof dramaor intensity
of action is also, in Donatello'ssculptures,a crescendoof pictorialintensity,
of vivid contrasts between light and dark. In the pure plasticity of the
"David" there is already the promise of the plastic dissolution of the
"Magdalene"in the Baptistery.
Perspectiveis thereforethe law upon which the compositionof a historia
occupies a large part of the second book
is based. The theory of the historia
of the Pitturaof Alberti: and the criticshave too readily neglected this part,
thinkingit void of any positive figurativecontent. Thus they have come to
refer Alberti's analysisof formal material to natural vision, when in reality
this is concernedwith the supreme aim of the artist: the compositionof a
historia.Alberti explicitly declares that the historiais composed of bodies,
the bodies of membersand the membersof surfaces:figurativemorphology

I20

GIULIO CARLO ARGAN

and syntax, which he has previouslyexplained, exist for the attainmentof

this literary aim. Beauty, it is trlle, is created by the compositionof the
surfaces,but beauty or perfectionaccordingto the ancient models,is not yet
the historia.
Although Alberti cites several examples of ancient historae
one
gets the impressionthat he considersthe historia
as a supersedingof beauty
in a moral sense, that is not as something pertaining to the memory of
antiquity, but as a fact of the "modern"consciousness. To the practice of
ancient art he adds the living practiceof the art of Donatello and Masaccio.
What are the ideal conditionsof the "historia"
? The standardswhich Alberti
lays down in this matter correspondexactly to the theory of painting as
intersection:intersectionis the necessaryconditionof the literarydignity of
the historia.It is true that Alberti, though he proclaimsthat he wishes to
write as a painter, is a man of letters; it is also true that the painting and
sculptureof the Quattrocentoare not, in a strictsense,literaryor humanistic;
it is none the less importantthat criticismshouldfeel the need of considering
these formal questionson a plane of literary and humanisticdignity. The
form does not attain this dignity by the quality of its "content,"but by its
own formalquality or by the way in which it resolvesthat content.
In orderthat such a figuredworkmay attain the value of a historiait is
of the first importance,Alberti explains, that every figure should be individualized both in its physical conformationand in the attributesthat are
proper to it. The result of such individualizationis variety, though variety
should not be allowed to distract one from the central theme to be represented. The numberof figuresmust be limited so that the historiadoes not
degenerateinto confusion:thereforethe painter must distributethe full and
the void in due proportion. This is the very conditionof plastic form as the
supremevalue of proportion. The figuresmust have concordantmovements,
that is the action must take place at a single moment of time and space;
the same movementsmust not be repeated by differentfigures,since every
one has its special function. When he comes to movementsAlberti does not
forget that the painter can representonly what can be seen; the movements
of the soul can thereforebe expressedonly through the actions and movements of the body, and the painterwill only considermovements"which are
made by changingplace." It is thereforetrue of movements,consideredas
movementsof the soul, just as it is true of things, that they exist in so far as
they occupy "a place." These movementsmust next be developed in all
directions;that is there can be no historiaunless the action builds up the
whole of space. Alberti furtherrequires that in every historiaone figure
should introduceor commenton the action, or, in other words,shouldinterpose between the spectatorand the action a mental distance (which is the
pre-conditionof a catharsis) correspondingto the optical distance which
perspectiverequiresbetween the eye and the object, so that the latter may
not invade the field of visionbut insteadmay be proportionedby and resolved
into space.
The historia,therefore, is the typical and perfect product of ingegno:
at once the culminatingpoint and the moraljustificationof artisticcreation.
The historia,indeed, is an "invention"or a "fiction"; but only in the sense
that it transposesthe realisticchronicleof facts into the sphere of universal

THE ARCHITECTURE OF BRUNELLESCHI

I2I

ideas, and is thus a cathartic representation. The equivalenceof "fiction"

and "invention,"while it does away with any suggestionof mimesisin the
first term, and with any suggestionof the arbitraryin the second, clarifies
the value of the term historia,which is not merely the recordor expositionof
an action, but the raisingof it to an eternal,or, preciselyan historicalsignificance.
It is impossibleto overlookthe analogy of this idea of the historiawith
the idea of ancientdrama,which the cultureof the Renaissancehad inherited
from Aristotle'sPoetics. Tragedy is an action that acquires a universal
value either by reasonof the nobility and moral elevation of the contending
persons,or because of the magnitudeof the action broughtabout by a combination of the slowly marshalledforces of destiny; hidden purposesof the
gods that are realizedand take shape in the passionsand actionsof men. For
this reason dramatic action takes on an exemplary moral value, not in a
pedagogicalor moralistic,but in a profoundlysolemn sense.
The historiais always exemplaryor, more generally,allegorical(one may
recallAlberti'sdescriptionofthe "Calumnyof Apelles"on whichBotticelliwas
to draw) by reasonof its profoundnaturalisticcontent. All reality flowsinto
the action, fillingit and findingin it the act that manifestsand reveals,that is,
"creates,"reality thoughonly perhapsthroughthe mute and solemnsuggestions of a few essentialmovements. Nature itself, in its loftiestmanifestation,
speaksand acts in dramaticaction. In order thereforethat the historiamay
have its full value and that human actionsshould be strippedof all that is of
merelyoccasionalor anecdotalsignificance,they must be referredto the very
origin of things, to the beginningsof space, to the cosmicgenesisof light and
shade. Only in this worldwhich he createsand ordersby his own act can man
be fully himself.
The problemof space as a dimensionof action, or as the supremedemonstrationof man's dominion over reality, is the problem (which still awaitsa
critical solution) of the painting of Masaccio.