Chapter 02 - Sets

Test Bank for Mathematical Excursions 4th Edition by Aufmann Lockwood Nation and
Clegg 1305965582 9781305965584
Full link download
Solution Manual

https://testbankpack.com/p/solution-manual-for-mathematical-excursions-4th-edition-
by-aufmann-lockwood-nation-and-clegg-1305965582-9781305965584/
Test Bank
https://testbankpack.com/p/test-bank-for-mathematical-excursions-4th-edition-
aufmann-1305965582-9781305965584/

1. Identify the sets:

The integers greater than –5 and less than 1.

a. {-5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0}

b. {-4, -3, -2, -1, 0}
c. {-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1}
d. {-5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1}
ANSWER: b

2. Identify the sets:

The even natural numbers that are less than 12.

a. {0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10}
b. {2, 4, 6, 8, 10}
c. {2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12}
d. {0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12}
ANSWER: b

3. Use the roster method to write the set of the odd natural numbers less than 11.
ANSWER: {1, 3, 5, 7, 9}

4. Use set-builder notation to write the set:

Even integers less than 54

a.
b.
c.

d.
ANSWER: a

Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 1

Chapter 02 - Sets

5. Use the roster method to write the set of integers that satisfy .

a.
b.
c.

Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 2

Chapter 02 - Sets

d.
e.
ANSWER: d

6. Indicate whether the following sets are equal.

a.
b.
ANSWER: a

7. Write a description of the set .

a. The set of all integers between 5 and 10.

b. The set of all integers between 6 and 9.
c. The set of all real numbers between 5 and 10.
d. The set of all real numbers between 6 and 9.
e. The set of all rational numbers between 6 and 9.
ANSWER: a

8. Use or to indicate whether the given object is an element of the given set.

a.

b.
ANSWER: a

9. Suppose . Find a set B such that A is equivalent to B.

a.
b.
c.

d.
e.
ANSWER: e

10. Find a set B that is well-defined such that and .

a.
b. B is the set containing the first 10 positive real numbers
c.
d. B is
Copyright the setLearning.
Cengage containing the by
Powered first 10 positive
Cognero. real numbers and the first 5 negative real numbers Page 3
Chapter 02 - Sets

e.
ANSWER: a

11. Use or to indicate whether the given object is an element of the given set.

a.

b.
ANSWER: b

12. Use set-builder notation to write the set:

Positive integers less than 8

a.
b.
c.
d.
ANSWER: a

13. Use the graph below, which shows the average number of weekly viewers of a 30-minute television program (in
millions of viewers) from 2000 to 2006.

List the set of years such that the average number of weekly viewers
was at least 10 million and more than the previous year.
Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 4
Chapter 02 - Sets

a. {2002, 2003, 2005}

b. {1001, 2002, 2005}
c. {2001, 2004, 2006}
d. null set
e. {2004}
ANSWER: b

14. The following table shows the total student enrollment at a certain university for the years 2001 through 2005.

Year Enrollment
2001 5536
2002 5617
2003 5796
2004 5768
2005 5730

Use the information in the table and the roster method to represent the following set:

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
ANSWER: a

15. Find the cardinality of the set .

a. 330
b. 176
c. 22
d. 4
e. 44
ANSWER: d

16. Find the cardinality of the set .

a. 55
b. 29
c. 30
d. 6
e. 202
ANSWER: b

17. Determine whether sets A and B are equal but not equivalent, equivalent but not equal, both equal and equivalent, or
Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 5
Another document from Scribd.com that is
random and unrelated content:
architecture may, I think, be almost defined as the artistic coördination of
structural parts. As in any natural organic form, a well-designed building
has a consistent internal anatomy, and its external character is a
consequence and expression of this. The dome of St. Peter’s violates the
true principles of organic composition, and this I believe to be
incompatible with the highest architectural beauty.
 CHAPTER V
CHURCH ARCHITECTURE OF THE ROMAN RENAISSANCE

As for the rest of the church of St. Peter, we need give attention to
that part only which was designed by Michael Angelo on the basis of the
original scheme of Bramante, namely, all to the eastward of,[65] and
including, the first bay west of the crossing. The western bays of the
nave as it now stands were, as is well known, added at a later time by the
architect Maderna. The plan (Fig. 31) of the earlier part is thoroughly
fine, and if the elevation had been made consistent with this plan, St.
Peter’s might have been one of the noblest monuments in Christendom.
But the architects of the Renaissance rarely sought consistency in design;
they were prone, from first to last, to mix incongruous elements. The
essentially Byzantine plan here adopted could not be carried out in
elevation with classic Roman details with a noble result; and the attempt
which Michael Angelo made to produce an architectural effect foreign to
the real structural system led of necessity, not only to such
inconsistencies as are common in Renaissance motives, but to some
awkward makeshifts which have not, I believe, been hitherto noticed by
writers on this edifice.
Following what appears to have been Bramante’s intention, Michael
Angelo constructed barrel vaults over the arms of the cross,[66]
supporting them on piers and arches which had been begun by Bramante.
To this simple and reasonable scheme he applied a colossal order of
Corinthian pilasters, a pair against each pier, as Alberti had done on a
smaller scale at Mantua, and as Bramante appears to have intended in the
great piers of the crossing, if not in all of the others. Apart from the
superficial and purely ornamental character of the order, and its
inappropriateness as ornament in such a system, its exaggerated scale
dwarfs the effect of magnitude in the whole interior. The eye naturally
estimates this magnitude by the customary proportions of a large classic
order, and while these are by no means fixed, there is an approximate
mean scale upon which we base our judgment. No beholder on entering
St. Peter’s can, indeed, fail to be impressed with the unusual size of the
order; but he is not apt to realize how far it exceeds the largest orders of
antiquity. The order of the Parthenon is about forty-five feet high, and
that of the portico of the Pantheon is about sixty feet. These are
exceptionally large among the orders of Greek and Roman antiquity[67]
but the order of St. Peter’s is one hundred feet high.

F . 31.—Plan of St. Peter’s, from Fontana.

The lack of due effect of scale in this interior has been often
remarked, and it is generally attributed to the great magnitude of the
structural parts. The size of these parts could not, however, well be
different from what they are. Their magnitude is determined by the scale
of the great dome and the width and altitude of the arms of the cross. The
piers of the crossing are masses of masonry measuring on their longer
sides more than fifty feet on the pavement, while the pendentive arches
are one hundred and fifty feet high, and those of the arms of the cross are
seventy-five feet high. But with appropriate treatment their scale might
have been made more apparent. To adorn such piers and frame such
arches with a classic order is to destroy the proper effect of scale, as well
as to violate the true principles of architectural design by using structural
members without any structural meaning.
Apart from the barbarism already remarked (p. 29) of springing a
vault from a classic entablature, the effect of the gigantic order is
unhappy in other respects; the great salience of its cornice cuts off from
view the lower part of the vaulting, and this pronounced overhanging
ledge, extending around the whole interior, breaks the continuity of the
upright lines into the vaulting, and diminishes the effect of altitude.

F . 32.—Section of aisle of St. Peter’s.

But not only did Michael Angelo employ this incongruous and
ineffective ornamental scheme for the interior of St. Peter’s, he also
adopted a corresponding design for the exterior which wholly contradicts
the real character of the structure and led the architect into some curious
makeshifts. For this exterior he used another gigantic order surmounted
with an attic story. This obliged him to carry up the enclosing walls of
the aisles to a height equal to that of the nave, and led to difficulties
within. For the aisle vaulting was now far down below the top of these
walls, and it therefore became necessary, unless the space above this
vaulting was to be left open to the sky, with the enclosing wall standing
as a mere screen answering to nothing behind it,[68] to construct a flat
roof at the level of the attic cornice. Figure 32, a section through this part
of the structure, will explain this and some other awkward expedients to
which the architect was driven by the use of this colossal external order.
Of the two compartments through which the line _AB_ (plan, Fig. 31)
passes, one has a barrel vault and the other a dome, and, as each of the
other corresponding parts of the plan are vaulted in the same way, there
are four small domes in all. The effect of four smaller domes grouped
around the great central one would be happy for both internal and
external effect, if they were properly related in proportions, and the
scheme were carried out in a structurally consistent and rational way; but
such a scheme could not be developed here. For from the level of the
aisle arches a dome, even on a proportionately high drum, could not be
made to reach the level of the cornice of the enclosing wall unreasonably
elevated for the sake of the gigantic external order. But Michael Angelo
nevertheless constructed such a dome (_A_, Fig. 32), although it had to
be sunk up to its crown beneath the aisle roof, and then, for external
effect, he built another dome over it (_B_, Fig. 32). To light the lower
dome it was necessary to sink oblique openings, _a_, through the
massive masonry of the roof, and to light the useless vaulted chamber,
_b_, which he was obliged to make over the barrel vault of the inner
compartment (the crown of which is still farther down below the roof),
the well, _c_, had to be sunk. Thus instead of making a reasonable
design with ornamental details appropriate to its structural forms,
Michael Angelo first conceived an ornamental scheme consisting of the
inappropriate colossal order, and then fitted the building to it, filling up
vacant spaces with extravagantly massive solids and useless voids, and
resorting to other tortuous devices to piece out a fundamentally irrational
system.
Such is St. Peter’s church, which, though it has been much criticised,
has been more generally lauded as a model of architectural greatness. Its
real character has rarely been analyzed or rationally considered. That it
has qualities of majesty and grandeur need not be denied; but these
qualities are mainly due to its vast magnitude, and to what it retains of
the design of its first, and greatest, architect. The manner in which the
scheme of Bramante was modified and distorted by his successors, and
chiefly by Michael Angelo, notwithstanding his professions of
admiration for Bramante’s intentions, is far from admirable, as I think
the foregoing account of its structural and artistic aberrations must show.
The building as a whole is characterized by incongruity and
extravagance, and when we consider further that the ornamentation of
the interior is for the most part a cheap deception, the rich coffering of
the vaulting and the pilasters of the great order being wrought in stucco
on a foundation of brickwork, we get the measure of the ideals and
architectural standards of men who, like Vasari, could write of it that,
“not in Christendom, nor in all the world, can a building of greater
magnificence and grandeur be seen.”[69] And this short-sighted
admiration did not abate as time went on, as we learn from the estimates
quoted by Fontana in his well-known book,[70] among which are the
following: “Temple more famous than that of Solomon,” “Unique
miracle of the world,” “Chief among the most celebrated of
Christendom,” “Compendium of the arts,” “Basis of the Catholic faith,”
“Unique edifice of the orb of earth,” etc., etc.
Before leaving St. Peter’s a word may be said of a project for the
building which was prepared by Antonio San Gallo the younger, Michael
Angelo’s immediate predecessor as architect for the fabric. This design,
no part of which was ever carried out, is embodied in a wooden model
preserved with that of Michael Angelo in the existing edifice. The most
meritorious feature of this model is the dome which, from a structural
point of view, is better than the one that was built, since it is well abutted
both at the springing and at the haunch. This important condition is
secured, however, by an architectural treatment that cannot be
commended, and consists of two superimposed concentric arcades, the
lower one surrounding the drum and abutting the vault at the springing,
while the upper one is set in retreat and fortifies the haunch. The
architectural effect of these arcades, which are of course adorned with
classic orders, is not happy because an arcade with a classic order is not
an appropriate form of abutment, though it may be made mechanically
effective, and also because the upper circle, rising from within the
circumference of the lower one, gives the composition an unpleasantly
telescopic effect.
 Our consideration of St. Peter’s has led us to an advanced phase of the
church architecture of the Roman Renaissance, and we must now go
back and examine a few of the earlier structures in Rome and elsewhere
that were produced under the distinctly Roman influence.

F . 33.

The church of Sant’Agostino is spoken of as a building of the early

Roman Renaissance, and is said to have been built by the architect
Giacomo da Pietra Santa between 1471 and 1484. But it is incredible that
such a church could have been designed by any architect of the
Renaissance, or by an Italian architect of any time. Letarouilly says of it
that from the thirteenth century the Augustinians had a convent and
small church in Rome, and that two centuries later they resolved to
enlarge the church, and employed as architects Giacomo da Pietra Santa
and a Florentine named Sebastiano.[71] The character of the building is
such, however, as to warrant the belief that it is a mediæval structure
with slight interior ornamental additions of the Renaissance, which may
be by Pietra Santa, and a façade, dating from before the close of the
fifteenth century, by Baccio Pintelli. In general character the church is in
the style of the Rhenish Romanesque architecture of the twelfth century.
It has a nave with groined vaulting in square compartments, each
embracing two vault compartments of the aisles. It has also the Rhenish
alternate system with plain square piers, and archivolts of square section,
originally without mouldings, and the main piers have each a broad
pilaster-strip carried up to the springing of the vaults. The triforium
space has no openings, and the clerestory has plain round-arched
windows. It is thus a thoroughly northern Romanesque scheme, entirely
logical in its simple construction and fine in its proportions. The
Renaissance interpolations consist of a few ornamental details only. A
stilted composite column is set against the pilaster-strip of each main
pier (Fig. 33), this column is crowned with an entablature-block reaching
to the level of the triforium, and upon it is set a short pilaster surmounted
with a smaller entablature-block at the vaulting impost. This superfluous
and irrational compound, breaking the reasonable and effective
continuity of the mediæval pilaster-strip, greatly disfigures the originally
noble design. The only other neo-classic details of the interior are
mouldings at the arch imposts and on the archivolts, and coffering on the
soffits of the arches. These are quiet and less injurious in effect, though
equally superfluous and inappropriate. Thus did the sophistication of the
Renaissance designers often blind them to real architectural excellence,
and lead them to fancy that they could improve such an admirable and
consistent interior by incongruous and meaningless features.
 F . 34.—Façade of Sant’ Agostino.

The façade (Fig. 34) is wholly of the Renaissance, and has no

mediæval character except in its general outline, which conforms with
that of the building itself. It is a simple design, and foreshadows those of
Vignola and Della Porta for the church of the Gesù, to which it is
superior in merit, being more reasonable and quiet. Shallow pilasters of
considerable elegance mark the divisions of the interior, the portals are
framed with simple classic mouldings without orders, and the aisle
compartments are surmounted with reversed consoles after the manner of
those introduced by Alberti in the façade of Santa Maria Novella in
Florence. These consoles are, however, so different in character from the
rest of the façade, having their details in higher relief and being set a
little in retreat, that they would appear to be later interpolations.
Answering to nothing in the building, they are superfluous ornaments,
and do not improve the composition, which without them is as
reasonable as a composition made up of superficial classic details can
well be. A peculiar feature of this front is the truncated pediment that
crowns the lower division, and forms the basis of the clerestory
compartment. The small rectangular tablets that break the wall surfaces
are also noticeable as foreshadowing a treatment that was subsequently
much affected by Vignola. Contemporaneously with the façade, and by
the same architect, a dome on a drum resting on pendentives was built
over the crossing. The present dome rising directly from the pendentives
is an alteration of a later time.
 F . 35.—Exterior of Santa Maria della Consolazione, Todi.

In the earlier churches that were wholly built under the Roman
Renaissance influence, the Byzantine scheme largely prevails in the plan
and structural forms, probably because it lent itself to the most effective
display of a high central dome. Among the first of these buildings is the
church of Santa Maria della Consolazione outside the wall at Todi. The
design is attributed to Bramante,[72] and it seems to bear enough
resemblance to what we know of his work to justify the attribution. The
arms of the cross here take the form of apses, the eastern one being
semicircular on plan, and the others polygonal. The dome (Fig. 35) is
raised on a high drum, and is almost an exact reproduction of that of San
Pietro in Montorio. Its thrusts are thus entirely unbuttressed, but it is
probably bound with chains, as was the custom at this time in domes
constructed in this manner.[73] The half-domes of the apses are better
adjusted. They spring from within the supporting walls, which are
carried up high enough to give effective abutment, and are loaded at the
haunch by stepped rings of masonry, as in the Pantheon. The details of
the interior (Fig. 36) consist of two superimposed orders of small
pilasters, with great pilasters on the angles of the crossing reaching from
the pavement to the springing of the pendentive arches, and from
ressauts of the upper entablature converging ribs rise against the surfaces
of the vaults. Several further awkward results are here noticeable as a
consequence of this application of the inappropriate classic details to the
Byzantine structural scheme. The entablature which is carried around the
whole interior at the springing of the vaults, has to do duty at once for
the small order of the upper stage and for the great angle pilasters, and
thus in so far as it is in good proportion for the one it cannot be so for the
other. Then the true magnitudes of the piers and the pendentive arches
are falsified by the pilasters and simulated archivolts which spring from
them. These piers and arches really embrace in width both the pilasters
and archivolts and the spaces of wall and vaulting between them and the
pilasters of the smaller orders and ribs which spring from them. The
proper and impressive massiveness of the essentially Byzantine system
employed is thus contradicted by an apparent skeleton of classic orders
simulating an organic structural scheme which has no real existence.
F . 36.—Interior of Todi.
 F . 37.—Plan of San Biagio.

The exterior of this monument (Fig. 35) has much merit in its general
form and proportions. The great central square mass, visible from the
ground upward, gives the sense of support for the dome which the eye
demands, and the apses with their half-domes are effectively grouped in
subordination to the crowning feature. But this merit, which Todi shares
with many other buildings of the Renaissance, is primarily due to the
Byzantine scheme adopted, and cannot, therefore, be wholly credited to
the Renaissance architect.
F . 38.—Interior of San Biagio.
 F . 39.

A variation of this scheme occurs in the church of San Biagio at

Montepulciano by Antonio San Gallo the elder, and begun in the year
1518. Here the arms of the cross (Fig. 37) are square, with an apse added
to the eastern arm. The interior is ornamented with a single, and very
heavy, Doric order (Fig. 38), framing arched recesses in the imperial
Roman manner. The use of pilasters on the angles makes the awkward
combination of a pilaster coupled with a column necessary, and since the
entablature is in the plane of the wall, it has to be broken into very salient
ressauts in order to cover these members. Above the entablature is a low
ledge in retreat, broken into ressauts in conformity with those of the
entablature, and from these ressauts coffered archivolts are sprung under
the ends of the barrel vaults which cover the arms of the cross. The Doric
order is designed here, for the most part, in close conformity to ancient
models, save for the pilaster on the angle, which does not generally occur
in Roman monuments. The common Roman treatment of the angle is
shown in the arch of Septimius Severus (Fig. 20, p. 41), where the end
column of the order is placed at some distance from the end of the
façade, which is left in retreat without any pilaster. But Serlio[74]
describes the ruins of an ancient Roman building (Fig. 39) that appears
to have been a sort of open arcade or stoa, used as a meeting place for
merchants, on the angles of which pilasters are set together with
columns, somewhat as they were by Alberti in Santa Maria Novella, by
San Gallo here in San Biagio, and by many other architects of the
Renaissance. He speaks of the treatment of the angles of this building as
follows: “The corner pilasters are larger than the others, and were truly
made with excellent judgment, for they strengthen the angle with good
effect; and from this architects may learn how to design angles with
columns and pilasters bound together, in order that the corner may be
brought into line with the column, which gives more solidity to the
angle. If the said angle were withdrawn into line with the middle
pilasters, the façade, when viewed obliquely, with the round column on
the angle, would appear imperfect, and for this ... I strongly commend
this form of angle because it may be fully seen from all sides.”
 F . 40.—San Biagio, Montepulciano.

Externally the composition is remarkably good in its larger features

(Fig. 40). The dome, of slightly pointed outline, on a high drum, rises
grandly from the substructure, and is well proportioned in relation to it.
The wall surfaces are treated broadly, with no orders carried across them.
They are divided into two stages, with a pediment over each façade.
Super-imposed pilasters are set on the angles, and a Doric entablature,
carried across the whole front, with ressauts over the lower pilasters,
divides the two stages. The wall of the lower stage is entirely plain, with
a severely simple rectangular portal surmounted by a pediment. The wall
of the upper stage is divided into rectangular panels, as in the attic of the
Pazzi chapel in Florence, the central panel being pierced with a square-
headed window and framed with an order of which the capitals are Ionic
and the entablature Doric. The cornice of the top story and the raking
cornice of the pediment of each façade are broken into ressauts over the
pilasters, and an order of Ionic pilasters, with a very high entablature
broken into ressauts, surrounds the drum which supports the dome.
Square detached towers are set in the reëntrant angles of the west side,
only one of which was carried to completion. The completed one is in
three stages, each adorned with a heavy order, Doric, Ionic, and
Corinthian respectively. In these orders half-columns are coupled with
angle pilasters, as in the interior, and the entablatures have ressauts on
the angles over these members. An octagonal spire-like lantern, with a
tall drum adorned with an order of Corinthian pilasters and surmounted
by an attic, crowns the tower. Small obelisks set on the tower angles and
reversed consoles against the angles of the attic give a simulation of
Gothic form to the neo-classic scheme, and show the strong hold that
mediæval ideas still retained upon the minds of the designers. The first
of these spire-like towers of the Renaissance appears to be that of the
church of Santo Spirito in Florence, which is spoken of by Milizia as the
most beautiful of Italian bell towers.[75] It was designed by Baccio
d’Agnolo, who, beginning as a wood carver, imbibed the new
enthusiasm for the antique, and after studying the ancient monuments of
Rome[76] began the practice of architecture. This campanile is thus
noteworthy as the first of a large class of modern towers with spires of
which Wren’s famous steeples were the ultimate outcome. The scheme is
based on the mediæval campanile, the earliest form of which is the
Lombard Romanesque tower. The Lombard tower is characterized by its
simple rectangular outline, the walls rising sheer from the ground to the
cornice, and strengthened and adorned with shallow pilaster-strips,
corbelled string-courses marking the successive stories, and by small
grouped openings. The tower of Santa Maria Novella in Florence is
designed on this model, and the neighbouring tower of Prato and Giotto’s
famous campanile are later and richer modifications of the same type. In
the tower of Santo Spirito (Fig. 41) Baccio d’Agnolo has taken the
Lombard scheme and clothed it with a pseudo-classic dress. While his
classic details have much of that elegance which belongs to the best
Italian work, they are out of place in such a structure. The tall pilaster-
strips of the mediæval tower gave an expression as of an organic
skeleton running through the building. They had been developed out of
the classic pilaster to meet the needs of the mediæval type of structure,
and in substituting the superimposed classic orders for the appropriate
continuous members, the artist did violence to the true principles of
design.
 F . 41.—Tower of Santo Spirito.

The lantern with which this tower is crowned is an adaptation of

Brunelleschi’s lantern on the dome of the cathedral, but made more
aspiring in form, so that the general outline is like that of a Gothic spire.
But the form of a Gothic spire is far removed from anything that is
proper to classic composition.
Returning to San Biagio, it may be said that the orders here have a
closer conformity with those of classic antiquity than occurs in the
earlier monuments already mentioned, except the Tempietto of San
Pietro in Montorio by Bramante.
 F . 42.—Santissima Annunziatta, Arezzo.

In the nave of the church of Santissima Annunziatta in Arezzo, the

same architect produced a different design. The nave (Fig. 42), of only
three bays, is covered with a barrel vault, and the aisles have small
domes on pendentives. The supporting piers are square with a shallow
Corinthian pilaster on the face of each and an entablature passing over
the crowns of the arches. The archivolts are deep, and each one is
moulded on the face and plain on the soffit. These are carried on plain
pilasters with simple impost mouldings. The wall above the entablature
is plain and unbroken, except by a round-arched window over each bay
of the ground story, and is crowned with a heavy cornice from which the
vaulting springs. We have here a structural system of imperial Roman
massiveness, necessitated by the use of the great barrel vault.
After the early part of the sixteenth century Italy produced few
architects of a high order of genius. Most of the more advanced neo-
classic art is the work of mediocre men who, while professing to be
ardent advocates of grammatical correctness according to the ancient
rules, were hardly less capricious in their misuse of classic elements than
their predecessors had been. To enter upon the examination of any large
number of buildings in this later Renaissance style would be tedious and
unnecessary; but in addition to what we have already seen of it in the
work of Michael Angelo in St. Peter’s, we may give some attention to a
few characteristic works of the two leading architects of the later time:
Vignola and Palladio.
Few men did more to make the neo-classic ideas authoritative than
Giacomo Barrozzi, called Vignola. Beginning like so many others with
painting, Vignola was led early to the study of architecture, in which he
strove to gain an exact knowledge of classic Roman forms by drawing
and measuring the remains of the ancient edifices. He thus became a
devoted partisan of the antique, and he wrote a treatise on the Five
Orders which has been widely accepted as an authoritative guide in
modern architectural practice. To him, says Milizia, “Architecture is
under lasting obligations because he established it upon system, and
prescribed its rules.”[77] And the same author tells us further that Vignola
“purified architecture from some abuses which neither his
contemporaries nor the ancients had perceived”; yet nevertheless, he
adds, “his book has produced more harm than good, for to make the rules
more general, and more easy of application, he has altered the finest
proportions of the antique.” No system of architecture, Milizia says
further, “is more easy than that of Vignola, but the facility of it is
obtained at the expense of architecture itself.”
In his book,[78] which is made up largely of drawings and diagrams,
Vignola shows how the proportions of an order may be regulated by a
module down to the smallest details. He explains how to construct Ionic
volutes and other curves from centres, and how to describe the details of
Corinthian and composite capitals by means of plan and elevation. He
thus introduces a mechanical system modelled after the formulas of
Vitruvius.
 F . 43.—Vignola’s entablature.

But notwithstanding his ardent advocacy of the principles of ancient

Roman art, Vignola, in his own practice, not only altered the proportions
of the orders as Milizia says, but made many fanciful changes in them.
He introduced details which have no counterparts in correct Roman
design, and freely mixed those of different orders. An instance of this
occurs in an entablature figured in his book,[79] which he calls his own
invention. In this composition (Fig. 43) we have a pseudo-Doric frieze
between an architrave with multiplied faciæ, and a cornice on
modillions. In the place of triglyphs this frieze has consoles with two
channels, like those of a triglyph, on the curved face of each. To such
travesties of classic design did the striving after novelty, which was
curiously mingled with their ardour for the antique, lead the men of the
later Renaissance. For an advocate of classic correctness such aberrations
are the more surprising as they are expressly condemned by Vitruvius,
who warns his readers against them as follows: “If dentiled cornices are
used in the Doric order, triglyphs applied above the voluted Ionic, thus
transferring parts to one order which properly belong to another, the eye
will be offended, because custom otherwise applies these
peculiarities.”[80] The Roman writer might, indeed, have given a better
reason why the purity of the orders ought to be maintained, namely,
because to each of them the fine artistic genius of the Greeks had given
its appropriate details.

F . 44.—Half plan of Sant’Andrea.

In designing entire buildings Vignola shows no less freedom in

unclassic and incongruous combinations. This is manifested in the
earliest of his church edifices, that of Sant’Andrea di Ponte Molle
outside of the Porta del Popolo at Rome (Figs. 44, 45, and 46). It is a
small, oblong, rectangular enclosure covered with a dome of oval plan
on pendentives. The structural scheme is thus primarily Byzantine, but
the architectural treatment is Roman. The dome is built in a praiseworthy
form, and follows the construction of the dome of the Pantheon. An
enclosing drum is carried up from the pendentives to a considerable
height, and the haunch of the vault is well fortified by stepped rings of
masonry. These rings are criticised by Milizia[81] as awkward and
unnecessary because, he affirms, the vault might have been made secure
without them. He probably means that it might have been bound with
chains in the usual manner of the Renaissance. As in the Pantheon, the
drum rises so high above the springing that but little of the dome is
visible externally. The character of the rectangular substructure is
puzzling to the eye of a beholder who looks for meaning and congruity
in architectural forms. Wrought in shallow relief upon its façade is an
order of Corinthian pilasters surmounted by a classic pediment, and the
entablature of the order is returned on the sides of the building. The
effect of the whole may be compared to that of a Greek temple with an
attic supporting a dome built upon it. So awkward is the combination
that it might be supposed to be a piece of patchwork in which a building
of Greek temple form had been altered to gain more height within, were
it not that we find in the architect’s own book the plan and section
reproduced in Figs. 44 and 45, which show that the building as it now
exists was originally designed in its present form.[82]

F . 45.—Longitudinal section of Sant’Andrea, from Vignola’s book.

On reflection we discover that the scheme suggests a derivation from

the Pantheon. Not only is the dome shaped and adjusted as in that ancient
monument, save for its oval plan, but the rest of the composition is pretty
clearly from the same source. To realize this it is necessary only to
eliminate, in idea, the portico of the Pantheon with the exception of its
pediment, and to conceive this pediment as drawn back into the plane of
the rectangular façade. The pediment would then surmount the order of
Corinthian pilasters which adorn this façade, and the resulting
composition would be substantially identical with that of the façade of
St. Andrea. The minor differences are unimportant, as where Vignola has
placed a pair of pilasters, instead of only one, at each end of the façade,
has given the whole order more shallow relief, and has omitted the
fluting on the pilasters. Even the niches on either side of the portal are
reproduced from the Pantheon, though Vignola has pierced them with
windows.

F . 46.—Sant’Andrea di Ponte Molle.

The likeness extends farther. The return of the entablature along the
side walls and the cornice of the attic are the same in both instances; but
the second pediment in the Pantheon façade Vignola has not reproduced.
St. Andrea is thus a close, though a modified, copy of the rectangular
part of the Pantheon, with the rectangle elongated and surmounted by a
dome designed on the Pantheon model. It was not known in the sixteenth
century that the ancient monument is not a homogeneous structure, but
an awkward patchwork, the result of successive alterations and additions.
[83] Vignola took it entire as an example of that ancient style which he
regarded as authoritative, and based his design for St. Andrea upon it,
just as many modern architects have taken motives from Vignola
himself. If it were proposed to erect a dome upon the Parthenon, few
people would fail to see that the result would be an architectural
monstrosity, yet this would not be very different from what was done in
St. Andrea by an architect who has been looked upon as a champion of
classic correctness in design.
M. Palustre has called attention to the fact that, in the interior of St.
Andrea (Fig. 45), the two parts of the entablature which have no _raison
d’être_ under a vault have been omitted.[84] But the impropriety of a
complete entablature in connection with vaulting is no greater than that
of any part of a classic order, which has no justification in such
connection, as we have already remarked.
The pilgrimage church of Santa Maria degli Angeli, built over the
oratory of St. Francis at Assisi, is a more extensive monument which was
begun by Vignola in the year 1569. Though completed by other
architects, and extensively restored in 1832, the building as it now stands
is uniform in style throughout, and bears the marks of Vignola’s manner
of design. It is cruciform in plan, with a long nave and aisles, and a
square chapel opening out of each bay of each aisle. The nave and
transept have barrel vaulting, a half-dome covers the apse, and a dome
on a high drum resting on pendentives rises over the crossing. The aisles
have domical groined vaulting with transverse ribs, and the side chapels
have barrel vaults with their axes perpendicular to that of the nave. These
chapels thus form abutments to the inner vaulting, so that no external
buttresses are needed. The entire fabric is of brick, but the details,
including the orders of the interior, of the west front, and of the drum, are
wrought in stucco. For the interior the architect has employed a great
order of Doric pilasters, a single pilaster on the face of each pier, and on
the sides of the piers, under the aisle archivolts, he has placed pairs of
smaller pilasters. The soffits of the archivolts are very wide, and have
each a pair of salient sub-archivolts corresponding with the pilasters. It
had been common for the architects of the Roman Renaissance to break
the entablature into ressauts over the columns or pilasters of the orders
when used in this way, as San Gallo had done in Montepulciano and
Michael Angelo in St. Peter’s. But the effect of thus breaking the
continuity of the cornice line is unpleasing, and Vignola has avoided it
here by confining the ressaut to the architrave, frieze, and bed-
mouldings, leaving the corona of the cornice unbroken as in Figure 47.
The great piers of the crossing show the influence of St. Peter’s in being
splayed, and the forms of the pendentives lose their spherical surfaces in
being fitted to the straight line of the splay, as they do in St. Peter’s. The
design of the façade expresses with unusual truthfulness the divisions of
the interior, which are marked by pilasters like those of the great order
within, and by an arch coinciding with the curve of the vaulting.

F . 47.—Order of Santa Maria degli Angeli.

 F . 48.—Plan of the Gesù.

The Gesù in Rome, another large church by Vignola, and built at

about the same time as Santa Maria degli Angeli, is a variation of the
same scheme, and shows in a more marked degree the influence of St.
Peter’s. A plan of this building, the intended façade which Vignola did
not live to construct, and the existing façade by Jacomo della Porta are
given in the addendum to the edition of the architect’s book on the Five
Orders published in 1617 already referred to (p. 84), and are reproduced
in Figures 48, 49, and 50. The aisles are omitted here so that the side
chapels, which communicate with each other by narrow openings in the
dividing walls, open directly out of the nave. The transept is short, and
extends on either side beyond the nave only by the thickness of its walls.
An elevated dome on pendentives, circular on plan within and octagonal
on the outside, rises over the crossing, and barrel vaults cover the nave
and transept arms. The side chapels are vaulted, with small domes on
pendentives, except those in the angles of the crossing, which do not