DSCN6093 (3)

urchltccture. Th la Is nn IntoroiitlTiu r»x»implo of th* Renalasanco view of the Gothic, one dlfferlng from that of the freąuently ąuoted 16th century Itallan theoreticians who conaldered Gothic archltecture _a» the realm of barbariam chaos. Yet, whateyer the ap-

_Jparent dlfferences, both the views stem from the

icommon root and, namely, the Renaissance attitude towards rules and correct mathematical proportions. Some of the people of the period, accused medieyal archltecture of ignorance of classical rules and that was why they condemned it. According to others, the said archltecture was goyerned by rules other than classic, yet no less precise and binding which fact accounted for the architectural dignity of the Gothic. Thus, both these groups (estimated) Gothic in terms of the Renaissance scalę of eyaluation. A univocal determination — on the basis of ayailable materiał — of the role and sense of the medieyal designing methods is by no means easy. What strikes, above all, is an irrational freedom with which the dimensions of the respectiye elements were being deriyed from auxiliary geometrical diagrams. The interdependence of those dimensions turns out to be but apparent. And, though, potentially, detailed layouts of the buildings might result from the said diagrams, in practice, simple arithmetical depemdences were applied in establishing the concept of the construction as a who-le. The mutual' relation between the plan and faęade in many cases proves to be a fiction. Much seems to indicate that the geometrical grids and diagrams were of purely technical meaning. In view of the lack of uniform system of measures, they played the role of a scalę, proyiding for the transposition of the design to the actual dimensions of the building concerned while their significance as of an organising and order-ing factor was rather mediocre. At the same tirae, there seems to be no doubt that the medieyal architect ascribed to them much greater and morę vital importance. Th*is is testified to by Stornaloco’s design in which the eąuilateral triangle played but a compositional role whereas, for practical purposes, its altitude was determined in actual units of measure. Application of the elements of mathematical science was — in the opinion of the architects of the day — adding to the dignity of their profession. They were also influenced by theorem of the mathematical „musical” essence of beauty, yoiced by the neoplatonic philosophical trends and also, by the aesthetic and metaphysical speculations on the perfection of geometrical figures. Yet, these learned theories, have undergone a characteristic simplification and „break-ing” in the enyironment of craftsmen. From the fragments of philosophical science, accumulated in a dilletant, way, the architecfs theoretical views of were shaped, however far from rational systematization. This exerted an influence on the methods applied in practice. The documents preseryed point to a notable confusian of yarious procedures, impossible to be coyered within the frames of an orderly doctrine. It seems that the mere attitude of the medieyal architect, his naive conviction of the correctness of Solutions automatically resulting from amy application of the geometry of regular figures, contained germs, subseąuently utilized and improyed by his successor in the Renaissance period who started from the same neoplatonic theory of beauty.

eerncd, there were yarlous, s Im U nr, though ioo strlctly defined rules.

The different modes of the application of the ąuadratura as well as its „unłversal” character as an auxiliary method have been confirmed by selentific research e. g. that conducted by Maria Velte. The latter has ascertained — on the basis of Rorltzer’s desorlption — the applicatlon of prinolpally analoglc-al methods in the designing of a Gothic pinnade and of multi-storey towers.

Other regular geometrical figures were probably applied in a similar way as the sąuare. Records of the architects* discussions that accompanied the eon-struction of the Milan Cathedral, contain information of the disputes concerning the choice of the figurę that was to determine the proportions of the cross--section of the latter edifice. The greatest attention was devoted to the possibility of adopting the prin-ciple of an eąuilateral triangle. A releyant drawlng was prepared by the mathematician Gabriele Storna-loco. They even allowed themselves slightly to depart from geometrical preoision. The irrational altitude of the said eąuilateral triangle (determining the height of the nave vault) was caliculated in fuli units of the binding measure. This, in fact, wouki have resulted in a certain inerease in the height of the building. As a matter of fact, this project was sub-stituted by another one, being still morę of a oom-promise and still farther from geometrical precision.

Milan reoords do not depict discussion on the plan of the cathedral. Maybe it was, in principle, accepted prior to the inauguration of icommittee meęting held with the participation of fdreign architects from France and Germany. Cesare Cesarino, builder of the Milan Cathedral in the first half of the 16th century, inserted in his edition of Vitruvius the drawing of the plan of that cathedral, based on highly intricate and ingenious geometrical grid. He mentioned the latter plan was designed „germanico morę”. The simplicity of the geometrical methods tackled in the recorded discussions gives rise to doubt whether Ce-sarino*s design presents the actual prototype of the plan. Oomparison with the sketch-mote of Antonio di Vincenzo, architect from Bologna, concerning the plan of the very cathedral and dating from the year 1389 reveals an interesting concurence with that by Cesarino as far as the western part is concerned. An analogical application of the ąuadratura was marked there. The eastern part (in-clusive of the transept) dif-fers in di Vincenzo*s design from that in Cesarino’s and from the realized plan of the cathedral with which the said design of Cesarino in principle, does conform. Thus di Vincenzo seems to have copied an earlier yersion of the plan which was then altered with respect to its eastern part. Did Cesarino, how-ever, insert the scheme of the geometrical grid and of the plan actually used? There are certain data which suggest the possibility of free improvisation as regards the grid of the eastern part, in fact based on much simpler assumptions.

Cesarino’s term „germanico morę” was generally used in Italy, throughout the 16th century with respect to Gothic designing methods. And maybe, it was also from Cesarino that the conviction had been drawn and spread in certain milieus, on the rigorous obseryance of the principles of geometry in Gothic

114