________________________________________________
_
VOLUME II - SECTION XIII. THEORETICAL WRITINGS ON ARCHITECTURE
Leonardo's original writings on the theory of Architecture have come
down to us only in a fragmentary state; still, there seems to be no
doubt that he himself did not complete them. It would seem that
Leonardo entertained the idea of writing a large and connected book
on Architecture; and it is quite evident that the materials we
possess, which can be proved to have been written at different
periods, were noted down with a more or less definite aim and
purpose. They might all be collected under the one title: "Studies
on the Strength of Materials". Among them the investigations on the
subject of fissures in walls are particularly thorough, and very
fully reported; these passages are also especially interesting,
because Leonardo was certainly the first writer on architecture who
ever treated the subject at all. Here, as in all other cases
Leonardo carefully avoids all abstract argument. His data are not
derived from the principles of algebra, but from the laws of
mechanics, and his method throughout is strictly experimental.
Though the conclusions drawn from his investigations may not have
that precision which we are accustomed to find in Leonardo's
scientific labours, their interest is not lessened. They prove at
any rate his deep sagacity and wonderfully clear mind. No one
perhaps, who has studied these questions since Leonardo, has
combined with a scientific mind anything like the artistic delicacy
of perception which gives interest and lucidity to his observations.
I do not assert that the arrangement here adopted for the passages
in question is that originally intended by Leonardo; but their
distribution into five groups was suggested by the titles, or
headings, which Leonardo himself prefixed to most of these notes.
Some of the longer sections perhaps should not, to be in strict
agreement with this division, have been reproduced in their entirety
in the place where they occur. But the comparatively small amount of
the materials we possess will render them, even so, sufficiently
intelligible to the reader; it did not therefore seem necessary or
desirable to subdivide the passages merely for the sake of strict
classification._
_The small number of chapters given under the fifth class, treating
on the centre of gravity in roof-beams, bears no proportion to the
number of drawings and studies which refer to the same subject. Only
a small selection of these are reproduced in this work since the
majority have no explanatory text._
I. ON FISSURES IN WALLS.
770.
First write the treatise on the causes of the giving way of walls
and then, separately, treat of the remedies.
Parallel fissures constantly occur in buildings which are erected on
a hill side, when the hill is composed of stratified rocks with an
oblique stratification, because water and other moisture often
penetrates these oblique seams carrying in greasy and slippery soil;
and as the strata are not continuous down to the bottom of the
valley, the rocks slide in the direction of the slope, and the
motion does not cease till they have reached the bottom of the
valley, carrying with them, as though in a boat, that portion of the
building which is separated by them from the rest. The remedy for
this is always to build thick piers under the wall which is
slipping, with arches from one to another, and with a good scarp and
let the piers have a firm foundation in the strata so that they may
not break away from them.
In order to find the solid part of these strata, it is necessary to
make a shaft at the foot of the wall of great depth through the
strata; and in this shaft, on the side from which the hill slopes,
smooth and flatten a space one palm wide from the top to the bottom;
and after some time this smooth portion made on the side of the
shaft, will show plainly which part of the hill is moving.
[Footnote: See Pl. CIV.]
771.
The cracks in walls will never be parallel unless the part of the
wall that separates from the remainder does not slip down.
WHAT IS THE LAW BY WHICH BUILDINGS HAVE STABILITY.
The stability of buildings is the result of the contrary law to the
two former cases. That is to say that the walls must be all built up
equally, and by degrees, to equal heights all round the building,
and the whole thickness at once, whatever kind of walls they may be.
And although a thin wall dries more quickly than a thick one it will
not necessarily give way under the added weight day by day and thus,
[16] although a thin wall dries more quickly than a thick one, it
will not give way under the weight which the latter may acquire from
day to day. Because if double the amount of it dries in one day, one
of double the thickness will dry in two days or thereabouts; thus
the small addition of weight will be balanced by the smaller
difference of time [18].
The adversary says that _a_ which projects, slips down.
And here the adversary says that _r_ slips and not _c_.
HOW TO PROGNOSTICATE THE CAUSES OF CRACKS IN ANY SORT OF WALL.
The part of the wall which does not slip is that in which the
obliquity projects and overhangs the portion which has parted from
it and slipped down.
ON THE SITUATION OF FOUNDATIONS AND IN WHAT PLACES THEY ARE A CAUSE
OF RUIN.
When the crevice in the wall is wider at the top than at the bottom,
it is a manifest sign, that the cause of the fissure in the wall is
remote from the perpendicular line through the crevice.
[Footnote: Lines 1-5 refer to Pl. CV, No. 2. Line 9 _alle due
anteciedete_, see on the same page.
Lines 16-18. The translation of this is doubtful, and the meaning in
any case very obscure.
Lines 19-23 are on the right hand margin close to the two sketches
on Pl. CII, No. 3.]
772.
OF CRACKS IN WALLS, WHICH ARE WIDE AT THE BOTTOM AND NARROW AT THE
TOP AND OF THEIR CAUSES.
That wall which does not dry uniformly in an equal time, always
cracks.
A wall though of equal thickness will not dry with equal quickness
if it is not everywhere in contact with the same medium. Thus, if
one side of a wall were in contact with a damp slope and the other
were in contact with the air, then this latter side would remain of
the same size as before; that side which dries in the air will
shrink or diminish and the side which is kept damp will not dry. And
the dry portion will break away readily from the damp portion
because the damp part not shrinking in the same proportion does not
cohere and follow the movement of the part which dries continuously.
OF ARCHED CRACKS, WIDE AT THE TOP, AND NARROW BELOW.
Arched cracks, wide at the top and narrow below are found in
walled-up doors, which shrink more in their height than in their
breadth, and in proportion as their height is greater than their
width, and as the joints of the mortar are more numerous in the
height than in the width.
The crack diminishes less in _r o_ than in _m n_, in proportion as
there is less material between _r_ and _o_ than between _n_ and _m_.
Any crack made in a concave wall is wide below and narrow at the
top; and this originates, as is here shown at _b c d_, in the side
figure.
1. That which gets wet increases in proportion to the moisture it
imbibes.
2. And a wet object shrinks, while drying, in proportion to the
amount of moisture which evaporates from it.
[Footnote: The text of this passage is reproduced in facsimile on
Pl. CVI to the left. L. 36-40 are written inside the sketch No. 2.
L. 41-46 are partly written over the sketch No. 3 to which they refer.]
773.
OF THE CAUSES OF FISSURES IN [THE WALLS OF] PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
BUILDINGS.
The walls give way in cracks, some of which are more or less
vertical and others are oblique. The cracks which are in a vertical
direction are caused by the joining of new walls, with old walls,
whether straight or with indentations fitting on to those of the old
wall; for, as these indentations cannot bear the too great weight of
the wall added on to them, it is inevitable that they should break,
and give way to the settling of the new wall, which will shrink one
braccia in every ten, more or less, according to the greater or
smaller quantity of mortar used between the stones of the masonry,
and whether this mortar is more or less liquid. And observe, that
the walls should always be built first and then faced with the
stones intended to face them. For, if you do not proceed thus, since
the wall settles more than the stone facing, the projections left on
the sides of the wall must inevitably give way; because the stones
used for facing the wall being larger than those over which they are
laid, they will necessarily have less mortar laid between the
joints, and consequently they settle less; and this cannot happen if
the facing is added after the wall is dry.
_a b_ the new wall, _c_ the old wall, which has already settled; and
the part _a b_ settles afterwards, although _a_, being founded on
_c_, the old wall, cannot possibly break, having a stable foundation
on the old wall. But only the remainder _b_ of the new wall will
break away, because it is built from top to bottom of the building;
and the remainder of the new wall will overhang the gap above the
wall that has sunk.
774.
A new tower founded partly on old masonry.
775.
OF STONES WHICH DISJOIN THEMSELVES FROM THEIR MORTAR.
Stones laid in regular courses from bottom to top and built up with
an equal quantity of mortar settle equally throughout, when the
moisture that made the mortar soft evaporates.
By what is said above it is proved that the small extent of the new
wall between _A_ and _n_ will settle but little, in proportion to
the extent of the same wall between _c_ and _d_. The proportion will
in fact be that of the thinness of the mortar in relation to the
number of courses or to the quantity of mortar laid between the
stones above the different levels of the old wall.
[Footnote: See Pl. CV, No. 1. The top of the tower is wanting in
this reproduction, and with it the letter _n_ which, in the
original, stands above the letter _A_ over the top of the tower,
while _c_ stands perpendicularly over _d_.]
776.
This wall will break under the arch _e f_, because the seven whole
square bricks are not sufficient to sustain the spring of the arch
placed on them. And these seven bricks will give way in their middle
exactly as appears in _a b_. The reason is, that the brick _a_ has
above it only the weight _a k_, whilst the last brick under the arch
has above it the weight _c d x a_.
_c d_ seems to press on the arch towards the abutment at the point
_p_ but the weight _p o_ opposes resistence to it, whence the whole
pressure is transmitted to the root of the arch. Therefore the foot
of the arch acts like 7 6, which is more than double of _x z_.
II. ON FISSURES IN NICHES.
777.
ON FISSURES IN NICHES.
An arch constructed on a semicircle and bearing weights on the two
opposite thirds of its curve will give way at five points of the
curve. To prove this let the weights be at _n m_ which will break
the arch _a_, _b_, _f_. I say that, by the foregoing, as the
extremities _c_ and _a_ are equally pressed upon by the thrust _n_,
it follows, by the 5th, that the arch will give way at the point
which is furthest from the two forces acting on them and that is the
middle _e_. The same is to be understood of the opposite curve, _d g
b_; hence the weights _n m_ must sink, but they cannot sink by the
7th, without coming closer together, and they cannot come together
unless the extremities of the arch between them come closer, and if
these draw together the crown of the arch must break; and thus the
arch will give way in two places as was at first said &c.
I ask, given a weight at _a_ what counteracts it in the direction
_n_ _f_ and by what weight must the weight at _f_ be counteracted.
778.
ON THE SHRINKING OF DAMP BODIES OF DIFFERENT THICKNESS AND WIDTH.
The window _a_ is the cause of the crack at _b_; and this crack is
increased by the pressure of _n_ and _m_ which sink or penetrate
into the soil in which foundations are built more than the lighter
portion at _b_. Besides, the old foundation under _b_ has already
settled, and this the piers _n_ and _m_ have not yet done. Hence the
part _b_ does not settle down perpendicularly; on the contrary, it
is thrown outwards obliquely, and it cannot on the contrary be
thrown inwards, because a portion like this, separated from the main
wall, is larger outside than inside and the main wall, where it is
broken, is of the same shape and is also larger outside than inside;
therefore, if this separate portion were to fall inwards the larger
would have to pass through the smaller--which is impossible. Hence
it is evident that the portion of the semicircular wall when
disunited from the main wall will be thrust outwards, and not
inwards as the adversary says.
When a dome or a half-dome is crushed from above by an excess of
weight the vault will give way, forming a crack which diminishes
towards the top and is wide below, narrow on the inner side and wide
outside; as is the case with the outer husk of a pomegranate,
divided into many parts lengthwise; for the more it is pressed in
the direction of its length, that part of the joints will open most,
which is most distant from the cause of the pressure; and for that
reason the arches of the vaults of any apse should never be more
loaded than the arches of the principal building. Because that which
weighs most, presses most on the parts below, and they sink into the
foundations; but this cannot happen to lighter structures like the
said apses.
[Footnote: The figure on Pl. CV, No. 4 belongs to the first
paragraph of this passage, lines 1-14; fig. 5 is sketched by the
side of lines l5--and following. The sketch below of a pomegranate
refers to line 22. The drawing fig. 6 is, in the original, over line
37 and fig. 7 over line 54.]
Which of these two cubes will shrink the more uniformly: the cube
_A_ resting on the pavement, or the cube _b_ suspended in the air,
when both cubes are equal in weight and bulk, and of clay mixed with
equal quantities of water?
The cube placed on the pavement diminishes more in height than in
breadth, which the cube above, hanging in the air, cannot do. Thus
it is proved. The cube shown above is better shown here below.
The final result of the two cylinders of damp clay that is _a_ and
_b_ will be the pyramidal figures below _c_ and _d_. This is proved
thus: The cylinder _a_ resting on block of stone being made of clay
mixed with a great deal of water will sink by its weight, which
presses on its base, and in proportion as it settles and spreads all
the parts will be somewhat nearer to the base because that is
charged with the whole weight.
III. ON THE NATURE OF THE ARCH.
779.
WHAT IS AN ARCH?
The arch is nothing else than a force originated by two weaknesses,
for the arch in buildings is composed of two segments of a circle,
each of which being very weak in itself tends to fall; but as each
opposes this tendency in the other, the two weaknesses combine to
form one strength.
OF THE KIND OF PRESSURE IN ARCHES.
As the arch is a composite force it remains in equilibrium because
the thrust is equal from both sides; and if one of the segments
weighs more than the other the stability is lost, because the
greater pressure will outweigh the lesser.
OF DISTRIBUTING THE PRESSURE ABOVE AN ARCH.
Next to giving the segments of the circle equal weight it is
necessary to load them equally, or you will fall into the same
defect as before.
WHERE AN ARCH BREAKS.
An arch breaks at the part which lies below half way from the
centre.
SECOND RUPTURE OF THE ARCH.
If the excess of weight be placed in the middle of the arch at the
point _a_, that weight tends to fall towards _b_, and the arch
breaks at 2/3 of its height at _c e_; and _g e_ is as many times
stronger than _e a_, as _m o_ goes into _m n_.
ON ANOTHER CAUSE OF RUIN.
The arch will likewise give way under a transversal thrust, for when
the charge is not thrown directly on the foot of the arch, the arch
lasts but a short time.
780.
ON THE STRENGTH OF THE ARCH.
The way to give stability to the arch is to fill the spandrils with
good masonry up to the level of its summit.
ON THE LOADING OF ROUND ARCHES.
ON THE PROPER MANNER OF LOADING THE POINTED ARCH.
ON THE EVIL EFFECTS OF LOADING THE POINTED ARCH DIRECTLY ABOVE ITS
CROWN.
ON THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE POINTED ARCH BY THROWING THE PRESSURE ON
THE FLANKS.
An arch of small curve is safe in itself, but if it be heavily
charged, it is necessary to strengthen the flanks well. An arch of a
very large curve is weak in itself, and stronger if it be charged,
and will do little harm to its abutments, and its places of giving
way are _o p_.
[Footnote: Inside the large figure on the righi is the note: _Da
pesare la forza dell' archo_.]
781.
ON THE REMEDY FOR EARTHQUAKES.
The arch which throws its pressure perpendicularly on the abutments
will fulfil its function whatever be its direction, upside down,
sideways or upright.
The arch will not break if the chord of the outer arch does not
touch the inner arch. This is manifest by experience, because
whenever the chord _a o n_ of the outer arch _n r a_ approaches the
inner arch _x b y_ the arch will be weak, and it will be weaker in
proportion as the inner arch passes beyond that chord. When an arch
is loaded only on one side the thrust will press on the top of the
other side and be transmitted to the spring of the arch on that
side; and it will break at a point half way between its two
extremes, where it is farthest from the chord.
782.
A continuous body which has been forcibly bent into an arch, thrusts
in the direction of the straight line, which it tends to recover.
783.
In an arch judiciously weighted the thrust is oblique, so that the
triangle _c n b_ has no weight upon it.
784.
I here ask what weight will be needed to counterpoise and resist the
tendency of each of these arches to give way?
[Footnote: The two lower sketches are taken from the MS. S. K. M.
III, 10a; they have there no explanatory text.]
785.
ON THE STRENGTH OF THE ARCH IN ARCHITECTURE.
The stability of the arch built by an architect resides in the tie
and in the flanks.
ON THE POSITION OF THE TIE IN THE ABOVE NAMED ARCH.
The position of the tie is of the same importance at the beginning
of the arch and at the top of the perpendicular pier on which it
rests. This is proved by the 2nd "of supports" which says: that part
of a support has least resistance which is farthest from its solid
attachment; hence, as the top of the pier is farthest from the
middle of its true foundation and the same being the case at the
opposite extremities of the arch which are the points farthest from
the middle, which is really its [upper] attachment, we have
concluded that the tie _a b_ requires to be in such a position as
that its opposite ends are between the four above-mentioned
extremes.
The adversary says that this arch must be more than half a circle,
and that then it will not need a tie, because then the ends will not
thrust outwards but inwards, as is seen in the excess at _a c_, _b
d_. To this it must be answered that this would be a very poor
device, for three reasons. The first refers to the strength of the
arch, since it is proved that the circular parallel being composed
of two semicircles will only break where these semicircles cross
each other, as is seen in the figure _n m;_ besides this it follows
that there is a wider space between the extremes of the semicircle
than between the plane of the walls; the third reason is that the
weight placed to counterbalance the strength of the arch diminishes
in proportion as the piers of the arch are wider than the space
between the piers. Fourthly in proportion as the parts at _c a b d_
turn outwards, the piers are weaker to support the arch above them.
The 5th is that all the material and weight of the arch which are in
excess of the semicircle are useless and indeed mischievous; and
here it is to be noted that the weight placed above the arch will be
more likely to break the arch at _a b_, where the curve of the
excess begins that is added to the semicircle, than if the pier were
straight up to its junction with the semicircle [spring of the
arch].
AN ARCH LOADED OVER THE CROWN WILL GIVE WAY AT THE LEFT HAND AND
RIGHT HAND QUARTERS.
This is proved by the 7th of this which says: The opposite ends of
the support are equally pressed upon by the weight suspended to
them; hence the weight shown at _f_ is felt at _b c_, that is half
at each extremity; and by the third which says: in a support of
equal strength [throughout] that portion will give way soonest which
is farthest from its attachment; whence it follows that _d_ being
equally distant from _f, e_ .....
If the centering of the arch does not settle as the arch settles,
the mortar, as it dries, will shrink and detach itself from the
bricks between which it was laid to keep them together; and as it
thus leaves them disjoined the vault will remain loosely built, and
the rains will soon destroy it.
786.
ON THE STRENGTH AND NATURE OF ARCHES, AND WHERE THEY ARE STRONG OR
WEAK; AND THE SAME AS TO COLUMNS.
That part of the arch which is nearer to the horizontal offers least
resistance to the weight placed on it.
When the triangle _a z n_, by settling, drives backwards the 2/3 of
each 1/2 circle that is _a s_ and in the same way _z m_, the reason
is that _a_ is perpendicularly over _b_ and so likewise _z_ is above
_f_.
Either half of an arch, if overweighted, will break at 2/3 of its
height, the point which corresponds to the perpendicular line above
the middle of its bases, as is seen at _a b_; and this happens
because the weight tends to fall past the point _r_.--And if,
against its nature it should tend to fall towards the point _s_ the
arch _n s_ would break precisely in its middle. If the arch _n s_
were of a single piece of timber, if the weight placed at _n_ should
tend to fall in the line _n m_, the arch would break in the middle
of the arch _e m_, otherwise it will break at one third from the top
at the point a because from _a_ to _n_ the arch is nearer to the
horizontal than from _a_ to _o_ and from _o_ to _s_, in proportion
as _p t_ is greater than _t n_, _a o_ will be stronger than _a n_
and likewise in proportion as _s o_ is stronger than _o a_, _r p_
will be greater than _p t_.
The arch which is doubled to four times of its thickness will bear
four times the weight that the single arch could carry, and more in
proportion as the diameter of its thickness goes a smaller number of
times into its length. That is to say that if the thickness of the
single arch goes ten times into its length, the thickness of the
doubled arch will go five times into its length. Hence as the
thickness of the double arch goes only half as many times into its
length as that of the single arch does, it is reasonable that it
should carry half as much more weight as it would have to carry if
it were in direct proportion to the single arch. Hence as this
double arch has 4 times the thickness of the single arch, it would
seem that it ought to bear 4 times the weight; but by the above rule
it is shown that it will bear exactly 8 times as much.
THAT PIER, WHICH is CHARGED MOST UNEQUALLY, WILL SOONEST GIVE WAY.
The column _c b_, being charged with an equal weight, [on each side]
will be most durable, and the other two outward columns require on
the part outside of their centre as much pressure as there is inside
of their centre, that is, from the centre of the column, towards the
middle of the arch.
Arches which depend on chains for their support will not be very durable.
THAT ARCH WILL BE OF LONGER DURATION WHICH HAS A GOOD ABUTMENT
OPPOSED TO ITS THRUST.
The arch itself tends to fall. If the arch be 30 braccia and the
interval between the walls which carry it be 20, we know that 30
cannot pass through the 20 unless 20 becomes likewise 30. Hence the
arch being crushed by the excess of weight, and the walls offering
insufficient resistance, part, and afford room between them, for the
fall of the arch.
But if you do not wish to strengthen the arch with an iron tie you
must give it such abutments as can resist the thrust; and you can do
this thus: fill up the spandrels _m n_ with stones, and direct the
lines of the joints between them to the centre of the circle of the
arch, and the reason why this makes the arch durable is this. We
know very well that if the arch is loaded with an excess of weight
above its quarter as _a b_, the wall _f g_ will be thrust outwards
because the arch would yield in that direction; if the other quarter
_b c_ were loaded, the wall _f g_ would be thrust inwards, if it
were not for the line of stones _x y_ which resists this.
787.
PLAN.
Here it is shown how the arches made in the side of the octagon
thrust the piers of the angles outwards, as is shown by the line _h
c_ and by the line _t d_ which thrust out the pier _m_; that is they
tend to force it away from the centre of such an octagon.
788.
An Experiment to show that a weight placed on an arch does not
discharge itself entirely on its columns; on the contrary the
greater the weight placed on the arches, the less the arch transmits
the weight to the columns. The experiment is the following. Let a
man be placed on a steel yard in the middle of the shaft of a well,
then let him spread out his hands and feet between the walls of the
well, and you will see him weigh much less on the steel yard; give
him a weight on the shoulders, you will see by experiment, that the
greater the weight you give him the greater effort he will make in
spreading his arms and legs, and in pressing against the wall and
the less weight will be thrown on the steel yard.
IV. ON FOUNDATIONS, THE NATURE OF THE GROUND AND SUPPORTS.
789.
The first and most important thing is stability.
As to the foundations of the component parts of temples and other
public buildings, the depths of the foundations must bear the same
proportions to each other as the weight of material which is to be
placed upon them.
Every part of the depth of earth in a given space is composed of
layers, and each layer is composed of heavier or lighter materials,
the lowest being the heaviest. And this can be proved, because these
layers have been formed by the sediment from water carried down to
the sea, by the current of rivers which flow into it. The heaviest
part of this sediment was that which was first thrown down, and so
on by degrees; and this is the action of water when it becomes
stagnant, having first brought down the mud whence it first flowed.
And such layers of soil are seen in the banks of rivers, where their
constant flow has cut through them and divided one slope from the
other to a great depth; where in gravelly strata the waters have run
off, the materials have, in consequence, dried and been converted
into hard stone, and this happened most in what was the finest mud;
whence we conclude that every portion of the surface of the earth
was once at the centre of the earth, and _vice_versa_ &c.
790.
The heaviest part of the foundations of buildings settles most, and
leaves the lighter part above it separated from it.
And the soil which is most pressed, if it be porous yields most.
You should always make the foundations project equally beyond the
weight of the walls and piers, as shown at _m a b_. If you do as
many do, that is to say if you make a foundation of equal width from
the bottom up to the surface of the ground, and charge it above with
unequal weights, as shown at _b e_ and at _e o_, at the part of the
foundation at _b e_, the pier of the angle will weigh most and
thrust its foundation downwards, which the wall at _e o_ will not
do; since it does not cover the whole of its foundation, and
therefore thrusts less heavily and settles less. Hence, the pier _b
e_ in settling cracks and parts from the wall _e o_. This may be
seen in most buildings which are cracked round the piers.
791.
The window _a_ is well placed under the window _c_, and the window
_b_ is badly placed under the pier _d_, because this latter is
without support and foundation; mind therefore never to make a break
under the piers between the windows.
792.
OF THE SUPPORTS.
A pillar of which the thickness is increased will gain more than its
due strength, in direct proportion to what its loses in relative
height.
EXAMPLE.
If a pillar should be nine times as high as it is broad--that is to
say, if it is one braccio thick, according to rule it should be nine
braccia high--then, if you place 100 such pillars together in a mass
this will be ten braccia broad and 9 high; and if the first pillar
could carry 10000 pounds the second being only about as high as it
is wide, and thus lacking 8 parts of its proper length, it, that is
to say, each pillar thus united, will bear eight times more than
when disconnected; that is to say, that if at first it would carry
ten thousand pounds, it would now carry 90 thousand.
V. ON THE RESISTANCE OF BEAMS.
793.
That angle will offer the greatest resistance which is most acute,
and the most obtuse will be the weakest.
[Footnote: The three smaller sketches accompany the text in the
original, but the larger one is not directly connected with it. It
is to be found on fol. 89a of the same Manuscript and there we read
in a note, written underneath, _coverchio della perdicha del
castello_ (roof of the flagstaff of the castle),--Compare also Pl.
XCIII, No. 1.]
794.
If the beams and the weight _o_ are 100 pounds, how much weight will
be wanted at _ae_ to resist such a weight, that it may not fall
down?
795.
ON THE LENGTH OF BEAMS.
That beam which is more than 20 times as long as its greatest
thickness will be of brief duration and will break in half; and
remember, that the part built into the wall should be steeped in hot
pitch and filleted with oak boards likewise so steeped. Each beam
must pass through its walls and be secured beyond the walls with
sufficient chaining, because in consequence of earthquakes the beams
are often seen to come out of the walls and bring down the walls and
floors; whilst if they are chained they will hold the walls strongly
together and the walls will hold the floors. Again I remind you
never to put plaster over timber. Since by expansion and shrinking
of the timber produced by damp and dryness such floors often crack,
and once cracked their divisions gradually produce dust and an ugly
effect. Again remember not to lay a floor on beams supported on
arches; for, in time the floor which is made on beams settles
somewhat in the middle while that part of the floor which rests on
the arches remains in its place; hence, floors laid over two kinds
of supports look, in time, as if they were made in hills [Footnote:
19 M. RAVAISSON, in his edition of MS. A gives a very different
rendering of this passage translating it thus: _Les planchers qui
sont soutenus par deux differentes natures de supports paraissent
avec le temps faits en voute a cholli_.]
Remarks on the style of Leonardo's architecture.
A few remarks may here be added on the style of Leonardo's
architectural studies. However incomplete, however small in scale,
they allow us to establish a certain number of facts and
probabilities, well worthy of consideration.
When Leonardo began his studies the great name of Brunellesco was
still the inspiration of all Florence, and we cannot doubt that
Leonardo was open to it, since we find among his sketches the plan
of the church of Santo Spirito[Footnote 1: See Pl. XCIV, No. 2. Then
only in course of erection after the designs of Brunellesco, though
he was already dead; finished in 1481.] and a lateral view of San
Lorenzo (Pl. XCIV No. 1), a plan almost identical with the chapel
Degli Angeli, only begun by him (Pl. XCIV, No. 3) while among
Leonardo's designs for domes several clearly betray the influence of
Brunellesco's Cupola and the lantern of Santa Maria del
Fiore[Footnote 2: A small sketch of the tower of the Palazzo della
Signoria (MS. C.A. 309) proves that he also studied mediaeval
monuments.]
The beginning of the second period of modern Italian architecture
falls during the first twenty years of Leonardo's life. However the
new impetus given by Leon Battista Alberti either was not generally
understood by his contemporaries, or those who appreciated it, had
no opportunity of showing that they did so. It was only when taken
up by Bramante and developed by him to the highest rank of modern
architecture that this new influence was generally felt. Now the
peculiar feature of Leonardo's sketches is that, like the works of
Bramante, they appear to be the development and continuation of
Alberti's.
_But a question here occurs which is difficult to answer. Did
Leonardo, till he quitted Florence, follow the direction given by
the dominant school of Brunellesco, which would then have given rise
to his "First manner", or had he, even before he left Florence, felt
Alberti's influence--either through his works (Palazzo Ruccellai,
and the front of Santa Maria Novella) or through personal
intercourse? Or was it not till he went to Milan that Alberti's work
began to impress him through Bramante, who probably had known
Alberti at Mantua about 1470 and who not only carried out Alberti's
views and ideas, but, by his designs for St. Peter's at Rome, proved
himself the greatest of modern architects. When Leonardo went to
Milan Bramante had already been living there for many years. One of
his earliest works in Milan was the church of Santa Maria presso San
Satiro, Via del Falcone[Footnote 1: Evidence of this I intend to
give later on in a Life of Bramante, which I have in preparation.].
Now we find among Leonardos studies of Cupolas on Plates LXXXIV and
LXXXV and in Pl. LXXX several sketches which seem to me to have been
suggested by Bramante's dome of this church.
The MSS. B and Ash. II contain the plans of S. Sepolcro, the
pavilion in the garden of the duke of Milan, and two churches,
evidently inspired by the church of San Lorenzo at Milan.
MS. B. contains besides two notes relating to Pavia, one of them a
design for the sacristy of the Cathedral at Pavia, which cannot be
supposed to be dated later than 1492, and it has probably some
relation to Leonardo's call to Pavia June 21, 1490[Footnote 2: The
sketch of the plan of Brunellesco's church of Santo Spirito at
Florence, which occurs in the same Manuscript, may have been done
from memory.]. These and other considerations justify us in
concluding, that Leonardo made his studies of cupolas at Milan,
probably between the years 1487 and 1492 in anticipation of the
erection of one of the grandest churches of Italy, the Cathedral of
Pavia. This may explain the decidedly Lombardo-Bramantesque tendency
in the style of these studies, among which only a few remind us of
the forms of the cupolas of S. Maria del Fiore and of the Baptistery
of Florence. Thus, although when compared with Bramante's work,
several of these sketches plainly reveal that master's influence, we
find, among the sketches of domes, some, which show already
Bramante's classic style, of which the Tempietto of San Pietro in
Montorio, his first building executed at Rome, is the foremost
example[Footnote 3: It may be mentioned here, that in 1494 Bramante
made a similar design for the lantern of the Cupola of the Church of
Santa Maria delle Grazie.].
On Plate LXXXIV is a sketch of the plan of a similar circular
building; and the Mausoleum on Pl. XCVIII, no less than one of the
pedestals for the statue of Francesco Sforza (Pl. LXV), is of the
same type.
The drawings Pl. LXXXIV No. 2, Pl. LXXXVI No. 1 and 2 and the ground
flour ("flour" sic but should be "floor" ?) of the building in the
drawing Pl. XCI No. 2, with the interesting decoration by gigantic
statues in large niches, are also, I believe, more in the style
Bramante adopted at Rome, than in the Lombard style. Are we to
conclude from this that Leonardo on his part influenced Bramante in
the sense of simplifying his style and rendering it more congenial
to antique art? The answer to this important question seems at first
difficult to give, for we are here in presence of Bramante, the
greatest of modern architects, and with Leonardo, the man comparable
with no other. We have no knowledge of any buildings erected by
Leonardo, and unless we admit personal intercourse--which seems
probable, but of which there is no proof--, it would be difficult to
understand how Leonardo could have affected Bramante's style. The
converse is more easily to be admitted, since Bramante, as we have
proved elsewhere, drew and built simultaneously in different
manners, and though in Lombardy there is no building by him in his
classic style, the use of brick for building, in that part of Italy,
may easily account for it._
_Bramante's name is incidentally mentioned in Leonardo's manuscripts
in two passages (Nos. 1414 and 1448). On each occasion it is only a
slight passing allusion, and the nature of the context gives us no
due information as to any close connection between the two artists._
_It might be supposed, on the ground of Leonardo's relations with
the East given in sections XVII and XXI of this volume, that some
evidence of oriental influence might be detected in his
architectural drawings. I do not however think that any such traces
can be pointed out with certainty unless perhaps the drawing for a
Mausoleum, Pl. XC VIII._
Among several studies for the construction of cupolas above a Greek
cross there are some in which the forms are decidedly monotonous.
These, it is clear, were not designed as models of taste; they must
be regarded as the results of certain investigations into the laws
of proportion, harmony and contrast.
The designs for churches, on the plan of a Latin cross are
evidently intended to depart as little as possible from the form of
a Greek cross; and they also show a preference for a nave surrounded
with outer porticos.
The architectural forms preferred by Leonardo are pilasters coupled
(Pl. LXXXII No. 1; or grouped (Pl. LXXX No. 5 and XCIV No. 4), often
combined with niches. We often meet with orders superposed, one in
each story, or two small orders on one story, in combination with
one great order (Pl. XCVI No. 2).
The drum (tamburo) of these cupolas is generally octagonal, as in
the cathedral of Florence, and with similar round windows in its
sides. In Pl. LXXXVII No. 2 it is circular like the model actually
carried out by Michael Angelo at St. Peter's.
The cupola itself is either hidden under a pyramidal roof, as in the
Baptistery of Florence, San Lorenzo of Milan and most of the Lombard
churches (Pl. XCI No. 1 and Pl. XCII No. 1); but it more generally
suggests the curve of Sta Maria del Fiore (Pl. LXXXVIII No. 5; Pl.
XC No. 2; Pl. LXXXIX, M; Pl XC No. 4, Pl. XCVI No. 2). In other
cases (Pl. LXXX No. 4; Pl. LXXXIX; Pl. XC No. 2) it shows the sides
of the octagon crowned by semicircular pediments, as in
Brunellesco's lantern of the Cathedral and in the model for the
Cathedral of Pavia.
Finally, in some sketches the cupola is either semicircular, or as
in Pl. LXXXVII No. 2, shows the beautiful line, adopted sixty years
later by Michael Angelo for the existing dome of St. Peter's.
It is worth noticing that for all these domes Leonardo is not
satisfied to decorate the exterior merely with ascending ribs or
mouldings, but employs also a system of horizontal parallels to
complete the architectural system. Not the least interesting are the
designs for the tiburio (cupola) of the Milan Cathedral. They show
some of the forms, just mentioned, adapted to the peculiar gothic
style of that monument.
The few examples of interiors of churches recall the style employed
in Lombardy by Bramante, for instance in S. Maria di Canepanuova at
Pavia, or by Dolcebuono in the Monastero Maggiore at Milan (see Pl.
CI No. 1 [C. A. 181b; 546b]; Pl. LXXXIV No. 10).
The few indications concerning palaces seem to prove that Leonardo
followed Alberti's example of decorating the walls with pilasters
and a flat rustica, either in stone or by graffitti (Pl. CII No. 1
and Pl. LXXXV No. 14).
By pointing out the analogies between Leonardo's architecture and
that of other masters we in no way pretend to depreciate his
individual and original inventive power. These are at all events
beyond dispute. The project for the Mausoleum (Pl. XCVIII) would
alone suffice to rank him among the greatest architects who ever
lived. The peculiar shape of the tower (Pl. LXXX), of the churches
for preaching (Pl. XCVII No. 1 and pages 56 and 57, Fig. 1-4), his
curious plan for a city with high and low level streets (Pl. LXXVII
and LXXVIII No. 2 and No. 3), his Loggia with fountains (Pl. LXXXII
No. 4) reveal an originality, a power and facility of invention for
almost any given problem, which are quite wonderful.
In addition to all these qualities he propably stood alone in his
day in one department of architectural study,--his investigations,
namely, as to the resistance of vaults, foundations, walls and
arches.
As an application of these studies the plan of a semicircular vault
(Pl. CIII No. 2) may be mentioned here, disposed so as to produce no
thrust on the columns on which it rests:_ volta i botte e non
ispignie ifori le colone. _Above the geometrical patterns on the
same sheet, close to a circle inscribed in a square is the note:_ la
ragio d'una volta cioe il terzo del diamitro della sua ... del
tedesco in domo.
There are few data by which to judge of Leonardo's style in the
treatment of detail. On Pl. LXXXV No. 10 and Pl. CIII No. 3, we find
some details of pillars; on Pl. CI No. 3 slender pillars designed
for a fountain and on Pl. CIII No. 1 MS. B, is a pen and ink drawing
of a vase which also seems intended for a fountain. Three handles
seem to have been intended to connect the upper parts with the base.
There can be no doubt that Leonardo, like Bramante, but unlike
Michael Angelo, brought infinite delicacy of motive and execution to
bear on the details of his work. _
Read next: VOLUME II: SECTION XIV. ANATOMY, ZOOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY
Read previous: VOLUME II: SECTION XII. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS
Table of content of Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci
GO TO TOP OF SCREEN
Post your review
Your review will be placed after the table of content of this book
