Vecchio, 59:
   Museum;
     of S. Marco, _60_;
     National, _113_, _136_, _274_:
   Opera del Duomo, _136_, _182_, _307_:
   Palazzo;
     Alessandri, _132_;
     Medici, 68, _133_;
     Montalvo, _298_;
     Pitti, 42, _60_, 61, _66_, 68, _109_, _114_, _133_;
     Riccardi, _133_;
     Strozzi, 61, 68;
     Vecchio (dei Signori, Ducal, Duke Cosimo’s, etc.), _3_, _15_, _19_,
        _33_, 45, 61, _113_, _132_, 233, _306_, _307_:
   Piazza;
     S. Trinità, _66_, _110_;
     Vittorio Emanuele, _59_:
   Ponte S. Trinità, _46_, _139_:
   Strada dei Magistrati, see ‘Uffizi’:
   Uffizi, _5_, _59_, 70 f., _106_, _112_, _113_, _136_:
   Via dei Magistrati, see ‘Uffizi.’

 Flour;
   baked, mixed with clay to keep it moist, 150;
   in paste for priming canvas, _236_;
   for mucilage, 213.

 Fluxes, for enamels, _277_.

 Foggini, Giov. Batt., _60_.

 Fontainebleau, stucco work at, _171_, _183_, _302_.

 Foreshortening;
   in painting, 216 f.;
   in sculpture, 145.

 Fornarina, Raphael’s, her reputed house, _103_.

 Fountains, 32, 36, _38_, _40_, 46, 87 f., _110_, _113_, _116_.

 François I of France, _130_, _171_.

 ‘Frassinella’ (sharpening stone), 278.

 Frederick II, Emperor, _112_.

 French School at Rome, _53_.

 French, the, as glass workers, 267.

 Fresco painting, see ‘Painting, fresco.’

 Gaddi;
   Agnolo, _10_, _137_;
   Gaddo, _136_;
   Taddeo, _10_.

 Galluzzi, _History of the Grand Dukes_, _15_, _112_.

 ‘Ganymede,’ the Florentine, _106_.

 Garfagnana or Carfagnana;
   a district of Italy, _45_.

 Garnier, M., on Michelangelo, _81_.

 Gaye, _Carteggio_, _16_, _32_, _266_, _308_ f.

 _Gazette des Beaux Arts_, referred to, _81_.

 Genoa;
   Doria Palace, _247_;
   its flagstones or slates, 55, 238.

 German carving in hard materials, 174.

 ‘German work,’ 63, 83, _133_ f.

 Germans, the, in connection with engraving, _275_, _282_.

 Gesso;
   as painting ground, 223 f., 230, 236, _249_, _293_;
   reliefs in, _224_.

 Ghiberti, _18_, _183_, _199_.

 Gian, Maestro, 52, _128_ f., _175_.

 _Giornale d’ Italia_, _130_.

 Giotto, _10_, 225, _290_, _304_.

 Giovanni, Fra, of Verona, 262, _305_.

 Girardon, his statue of Louis XIV, _18_, _158_.

 Giulio, a silver coin, 276.

 Giusto, S., near Florence, 37.

 Glass;
   ‘crown,’ _265_;
   stained, 265 f., _308_ f.;
   Venetian, 268;
   see also ‘Mosaic.’

 Glue;
   from cheese, 173;
   from parchment shreds, 173;
   see also ‘Size.’

 Gori, _Thesaurus Vet. Diptychorum_, _136_.

 Gossets, the, workers in wax, _189_.

 Gothic Art, _16_, _17_, _60_, 83, _133_ f., _184_.

 Goths, the, 60, 63, 83, _134_.

 Gotti, Aurelio;
   on the length of the ‘braccio,’ viii;
   _Le Gallerie ... di Firenze_, _113_.

 Gozbert of Tegernsee, _310_.

 ‘Gradina’ (toothed chisel), 48, 152.

 Granite, 39 f.

 Granito;
   del foro, _41_;
   di Prato, _118_.

 Greece, as source of supply for stones, _35_, 36, 38, 42, 43.

 Greek;
   bronzes, _164_;
   incised designs, _273_;
   reliefs, _179_, _196_ f.;
   statues, _146_;
   technique of marble sculpture, _192_;
   technique of bronze casting, _202_;
   tempera paintings, see ‘Byzantine’;
   wood inlays, _304_.

 Gregorovius, _Geschichte der Stadt Rom_, _102_ f.

 Gregory XII, _227_.

 ‘Grisatoio’ (a tool), 269.

 Grotesques; 244 f., _299_ f.;
   meaning of term, _302_.

 Grottoes, 87, _302_.

 ‘Grozing iron’ (a tool), 269.

 Guasti, edition of Michelangelo’s poems, _180_.

 Guglielmo da Marcilla, 266, _268_, _311_.

 Guicciardini, on early Flemish painters, _226_.

 Gum, as a tempera, 222, _223_, 250, 267, 283.

 Haematite, 269.

 Hair, the, its treatment in sculpture, _144_.

 Hampton Court, _236_.

 Hare, _Days near Rome_, _88_.

 ‘Heads,’ as measures of columns, 65.

 Heemskerck, drawing of Michelangelo’s fountain, _116_.

 Helena, mother of Constantine, _27_.

 _Hermeneia_ (Mount Athos Handbook), _295_.

 ‘Hermes,’ the, of Praxiteles, _44_.

 Herrmann, _Steinbruchindustrie_, _49_.

 Hildesheim;
   bronze doors at, _164_;
   St. Michael’s, _302_.

 ‘Historic Ornament,’ _22_.

 Honey, as a tempera, _223_, 250.

 Hugo of Antwerp (van der Goes), 229.

 Humanism, _11_, _25_, _138_ f.

 Ideal Architecture, _18_, 96, _138_.

 Ilg, Dr Albert, _6_, _92_.

 Impruneta, Hill of the, 37, _127_.

 Industrial Arts, the; _21_;
   in Britain, _22_;
   in France, _21_;
   in Italy, _passim_.

 Inlays:
   breccia, 38:
   marble, 92 f., 258 f.:
   metal;
     damascening, 279 f.;
     niello, 273 f.:
   rustic, for fountains and grottoes, 87 f.:
   of coloured stones for pavements, etc., 57, 91:
   wood, 262 f., _303_ f.

 Intaglios, technique of, 168 f.

 Intarsia, _279_;
   see also ‘Tarsia.’

 Iron;
   armatures, ties, etc., 25, 74, 161 f., 271;
   see also ‘Armatures’;
   damascening in, 279 f.;
   scale or scum of, 234, 269.

 Istrian Stone, 56.

 _Jahrbuch d. k. deutschen Archeologischen Instituts_, _104_, _105_,
    _107_, _115_.

 Janni, Maestro, _128_, 174.

 Jervis, _I Tesori Sotterranei dell’ Italia_, _41_, _119_ f.

 Joggled lintels, _72_.

 John of Bruges, see ‘Eyck, van, Jan.’

 ‘Jonah,’ by Michelangelo, _216_.

 Julius;
   II, _108_, _260_, _266_, _267_, _276_, _308_;
   III, 32, _108_.

 ‘Justice,’ statue by Francesco del Tadda, _110_.

 Justus of Ghent, 229.

 Labarte, _Histoire des Arts Industriels_, _258_, _276_, _313_.

 ‘Lacedaemonium viride,’ _35_.

 ‘Laocoon,’ the, _116_.

 ‘Last Supper’;
   Leonardo’s, _233_;
   in Flemish glass, _311_.

 Lavagna, slates of, 55.

 Laws, against use of particular materials, etc., 58.

 Leads, for glass windows, 271.

 Leo;
   III, 310;
   X, _15_, _44_, _46_, _106_, _122_, _260_.

 Leonardo da Vinci, _12_, _14_, _15_, _139_, 230, _233_.

 Leopardi, Alessandro, _199_.

 _Liber Pontificalis_, _310_.

 Libergier, Hughes, of Reims, _207_.

 Light and shade, treatment of, 220.

 Lime;
   from marble chips, 86;
   from travertine, 86, _221_;
   its behaviour in connection with fresco, _288_.

 Lime-white, see ‘Bianco Sangiovanni.’

 Limewood, for carving, 173.

 Linen cloth, over panels, 224.

 Linlithgow Palace, _72_.

 Lippmann, _The Art of Wood Engraving_, _281_.

 Lomazzo, _231_.

 Lorenzetto, the sculptor, _107_.

 Lotto, _208_.

 Louis:
   XIV, age of, 21;
     statue of, _158_:
   XV, style of, _89_.

 Louvre, the, _44_, _107_, _116_, _194_, _201_.

 ‘Luano, Ludovico da’ (apocryphal painter), 228.

 Lübeck, _308_.

 Luini, _290_.

 Luni, _119_.

 Lysistratus, _188_.

 Maccari, _Graffiti e Chiaroscuri_, _298_.

 ‘Macigno,’ 57.

 Majano;
   Benedetto da, 262, _306_;
   Giuliano da, _306_.

 Manganese, its use in fluxes, _277_.

 ‘Manner,’ its meaning in sculpture, _144_.

 Mantegna, _236_;
   as tempera painter, _292_.

 Manufactory of Mosaics, Tuscan, _109_, _118_.

 _Manufacture des Meubles de la Couronne_, _21_.

 Marangoni, _Delle Cose Gentilesche_, _28_.

 Marble;
   coloured, _153_;
   Italian, ch. I _passim_, _117_ f., 152, 259;
   for mosaic, 91 f., 258;
   Parian, Pentelic, _44_;
   polish of, 49, 152, _153_;
   transparent, 43, 265.

 Marcilla, Guglielmo da, 266, _267_, _268_, _311_.

 Maremma, the Tuscan, its quarries, _128_.

 Mariotti, _Legislazione delle Belle Arti_, _59_, _61_.

 Marqueterie, _264_.

 Martin, painters named, _229_.

 ‘Mary of the Visitation,’ Reims, _184_.

 Massa, its quarries, _126_.

 Massi, _Museo Pio-Clementino_, _27_, _108_.

 Medals, technique of, 167 f.

 Mediaeval;
   sculpture, _144_;
   decorative art, _284_;
   see also ‘Gothic.’

 Medici;
   arms of the, _61_, 67;
   porphyry portraits of the, 33, _113_ f.;
   tombs of the, _194_.

 Medici, dei:
   Alessandro, 66:
   Cosimo (_Pater Patriae_), 33, _113_ f.:
   Cosimo I, Duke;
     personal references, _14_, _15_, 32, 33, 47, 70, _110_, _112_, 228;
     portrait in porphyry, 33, _113_;
     connection with the marble quarries, _120_, _124_, 261;
     his interest in Pisa, 50, _126_;
     works connected with his name at Florence, (Palazzo Vecchio), 32,
        _33_, 37;
     (Pitti), 38, 41;
     (Uffizi), 59, 70;
     (elsewhere), 59, 88:
   Ferdinando, 105:
   Francesco, _33_, 123:
   Giovanni, _112_:
   Giuliano, _15_:
   Giulio (Clement VII), _15_:
   Ippolito, _103_:
   Leonora, Duchess, 33:
   Lorenzo;
     the Magnificent, 227;
     Duca d’ Urbino, _15_:
   Piero, _112_.

 _Mélanges Nicole_, _194_.

 Melozzo da Forlì, _217_.

 Memling, Hans, _227_.

 ‘Meridiana,’ in the Pitti, _114_.

 Merrifield, Mrs, _3_, _6_.

 Michelagnolo, Michelangelo, see ‘Buonarroti.’

 Michelozzo, _199_.

 Milan;
   S. Ambrogio, _302_;
   Cathedral, _135_.

 Millar, _Plastering_, _150_.

 Mischiato, Mischio, see ‘Breccia.’

 _Mitteilungen d. k. deutschen Archeologischen Instituts_, _78_.

 Modelling in clay, 149 f., _198_.

 Models:
   for sculpture;
     full-sized, 150 f., 158, _190_, _192_ f., _194_, _202_;
     small, 148, _194_:
   for wood carving, 173:
   of wood for architecture, 207:
   for studying shadows, 214, 216.

 Monochromes, see ‘Chiaroscuri.’

 Monsummano, quarries of, _128_.

 Monte, monti;
   Albano, _128_;
   Altissimo, _120_ f.;
   Ceceri, _57_;
   Ferrato, _127_;
   S. Giuliano, 50, _126_;
   Martiri, _37_;
   Morello, 88;
   Pisani, 50, _126_;
   Rantoli, 37;
   Ripaldi, _60_;
   Sagro, _120_;
   Spertoli, _242_.

 _Monumenti del Istituto_, _76_.

 Morris, William, _3_, _22_.

 Morto da Feltro, _302_.

 Mosaic;
   antique, 91 f., _93_, 257, 263;
   derivation of word, _91_;
   Early Christian, _27_, _252_ f.;
   egg-shell, 93, _136_;
   glass, 93, 251;
   marble, 37, 92 f., 258 f.;
   pictorial, for walls, 93, 251 f.;
   rustic, for fountains and grottoes, 89, 90;
   technique of, 253 f.;
   Tuscan manufactory of, _109_, _118_;
   for variegated pavements (Cosmati-work), 91, _304_;
   vitreous pastes for, _311_ f.;
   of window glass, 266, _309_;
   wood, 262 f., _303_ f.

 Mosque;
   lamps from, _268_;
   windows in, _309_.

 Mother of Pearl, _93_.

 Mothes, _Baukunst ... in Italien_, _135_.

 Moulds, plaster, from the life, _188_.

 Mucilage, see ‘Glue.’

 ‘Muffle’ furnace, 271, 277.

 Müntz, Eugène;
   _Les Arts à la Cour des Papes_, _130_;
   on Byzantine mosaics, _136_.

 Mural decoration:
   decorative processes, _19_, 240 f., _287_ f.:
   fresco, _10_, 213 f., 221 f., _287_ f.:
   mosaic, 93, 251 f.:
   oil, 232 f., _236_, 237, _294_ f.;
     on stone, 239:
   stucco, 53, 170 f., 244 f., _299_ f.:
   sgraffito, 243, _298_ f.:
   tempera, 224, _291_ f.

 Naples:
   Museum, antiques at, _43_, _104_;
   pictures at, _227_:
   S. Barbara, _226_:
   S. Giacomo, tomb in, _47_:
   Vasari’s paintings at, _233_.

 Nature, study of, at the Renaissance, _12_, _14_.

 Net, the, for enlarging, 214.

 Niello, 273 f.

 Niké, from Samothrace, _107_.

 ‘Nile,’ Statue of the, 36, 44, _116_.

 Nola, Giovanni da, 47.

 ‘Nonsuch,’ Palace of, stuccoes at, _302_.

 Nose, the, in Greek and Florentine sculpture, _45_.

 ‘Nymph of Fontainebleau,’ Cellini’s, _201_.

 Octavianus, Cardinal, _227_.

 Oil;
   linseed, 230, 234;
   walnut, 230, 236.

 Oil colour, for printing from wood blocks, 283.

 Oil painting, 225, 226 f.;
   its first discovery, 226;
   its artistic advantages, 230;
   on stone, 55, 239.

 Olmo, by Castello, 88.

 Orders of Architecture, 63;
   Composite, 80 f.;
   Corinthian, 79 f.;
   Doric, 68 f.;
   Ionic, 78 f.;
   Italic, 82;
   Latin, 82;
   Rustic, 65 f.;
   Tuscan, 65 f., _132_.

 Oseri, Osoli, the river, 50, _126_.

 Pacheco, _7_;
   on tempera, _292_.

 Painting:
   definition of, 208:
   comparison of with sculpture, _179_:
   history of, _225_, 226 f., _287_, _290_, _292_, _294_ f.:
     Florentine and Italian compared with modern, _208_:
     Greek, _239_:
   painting grounds;
     canvas, 236 f.;
     glass, 267 f., _308_ f.;
     ivory, _190_;
     panels, 223 f., 230, 237;
     plaster, 221 f., 223, _287_ ff.;
     stone, 55, 239:
   materials, _225_,
     and ‘Introduction’ to Painting, _passim_:
   pigments, 221, 224, 242:
   processes;
     encaustic, _190_, _292_;
     fresco, _4_, _10_, _19_, 221 f., _287_ f.;
     oil, _10_, _19_, 226 ff., _294_ f.;
     tempera, _19_, 223 f., 240 f., _291_ f.

 Palazzo;
   dei Diamanti, Ferrara, _132_;
   see also ‘Florence,’ ‘Rome,’ etc.

 Palermo, Cathedral, _111_.

 Palissy, _139_.

 Palladio, _66_.

 Palmo, as measure of length, viii.

 Palomino, _7_.

 Panels;
   as painting grounds, 223 f., 230, 237;
   disadvantages of, _237_, 239;
   woods used for, _237_.

 Paragon (touchstone), 42 f., _104_, _117_ f.

 Parione, see ‘Rome.’

 Paris;
   as an art centre, 21;
   Sainte Chapelle, _311_.

 Parthenon, sculpture of, _183_, _199_.

 Pasiteles, _194_.

 Pastes;
   coloured for rustic work, 89;
   for first priming of canvas, 236.

 Pastorino of Siena, _189_.

 Patina, artificial;
   for bronze, 166;
   for silver, _273_.

 Paul;
   II, _40_;
   III, _40_, _108_, _260_;
   V, _39_.

 Pavements;
   breccia, 261;
   mosaic, 90 f., 258;
   tiled, 90, 260.

 Paxes, 274 f.

 Pear-tree wood, for wood-cuts, 281.

 Pedestals, to columns; 65, 75, 78, 79, 82;
   architectural use of them, _75_.

 Pentelicus, Mount, quarries at, _44_, _194_.

 Peperigno, Peperino, _51_, 55, 238.

 ‘Per forza di levare,’ ‘per via di porre’ (methods of sculpture), _179_
    f., _197_ f.

 Pergamon, smaller frieze from altar base, _197_.

 Perino del Vaga, _14_, _53_.

 ‘Perseus,’ by Cellini, _164_, _201_ f.

 Perspective, its study, _12_, _264_.

 Perspectives, 214, _264_, _305_.

 Perugino, Pietro, 230.

 Peruzzi, _78_.

 Petersburg, St., _304_.

 Petrarch, figure of in tarsia, _307_.

 Pheidias, _11_, _181_, _186_.

 Piè di Lupo (Lugo), 87 f.

 Piece-mould, 158 f., _202_.

 Pier Maria da Pescia, _112_.

 Pietà;
   by Donatello, _156_;
   by Michelangelo, _153_.

 Pietra forte, 57, 60 f.

 Pietra del fossato (fossataccio), 58.

 Pietra morta, _57_.

 Pietra serena, 57 f.

 Pietrasanta, 46, 50, _120_ f., 261.

 Pigments; 221, 224, 230, 242;
   for glass-painting, 269, _310_.

 Pinturicchio, _303_.

 Piombino, _127_.

 Piperno, see ‘Peperigno.’

 Pisa:
   Duke Cosimo’s care for, 50 f., _126_:
   Baptistry, _41_:
   Camposanto, 50:
   Duomo; 50, 252;
   ‘Cimabue’ at, _252_.

 Pisan mountains, _50_, _126_.

 Pisano, Nicola, _197_.

 Pistolesi, _Il Vaticano Descritto_, _53_, _108_.

 Pius;
   IV, _110_;
   VI, _27_, _108_, _109_.

 Plaster work, see ‘Stucco.’

 Plato, _Sophist_, _181_.

 Pliny, _Historia Naturalis_, _34_, _35_, _44_, _51_, _91_, _93_, _101_,
    _117_, _225_, _236_, _237_, _273_, _291_.

 Podium, of Roman temples, _75_, _78_.

 Pointing machine, _191_.

 Pola, arch at, 79.

 Polishing;
   breccias, 38;
   bronze, 165;
   enamels, 278;
   marble mosaics, 260;
   marble, statuary, 45, 47, 49, 152, _153_;
   niellos, 274;
   pietra serena, 58;
   porphyry, 31, 34;
   stucco, _171_;
   ‘touchstones,’ 42 f.

 Pollaiuolo, A., _199_, _275_.

 Polvaccio quarry, 46, _120_.

 Pompeian;
   style in ornament, _302_;
   wall paintings, _225_.

 Pomponius Gauricus, _199_.

 Popes, see the individual names, ‘Clement,’ etc.

 Porphyry; 26 ff., 101 ff.;
   green, at S. Nicola in Carcere, Rome, _28_.

 Porta, Giacomo della, _52_.

 Portinari, the, 227 f.

 ‘Pot-metal,’ _270_, _311_.

 Potters’;
   clay, 240;
   ‘soap,’ _277_.

 Pouncing, as method of transfer, _289_.

 Pozzuoli, Pozzuolo, 66, _303_.

 Prato, 42, _127_.

 Praxiteles; 180;
   his ‘Hermes,’ _44_.

 Presses, decorated, _305_.

 Primaticcio, _171_, _183_.

 Priming, directions for, 230 ff.

 ‘Prisoners,’ porphyry figures in Boboli Gardens, 29.

 Probert, _History of Miniature Art_, _190_.

 _Proceedings_ of Huguenot Society, _189_.

 Proportions of the human figure, 146, _180_ f.

 Pulvinated frieze, 79.

 Pumice stone, for polishing;
   bronze, 165;
   marble, 49, 152;
   niellos, 274.

 ‘Puntelli,’ for measuring statues, _194_.

 _Quellenschriften_, the Vienna, _2_, _6_, _92_.

 Rabelais, his Abbey of Theleme, _139_.

 Raffaello da Urbino, see ‘Raphael.’

 _Ragionamenti_, see ‘Vasari, his writings.’

 Rags covered with clay, for drapery, 150, 208.

 Raimondi, Marc Antonio, _274_, _275_.

 Raphael; _14_, _15_, _134_, _188_, 220, 230, 260;
   the _Report_ on Roman Monuments, _134_.

 Ravello, _111_.

 Ravenna;
   mosaics, 252;
   stuccoes in Baptistry, _301_.

 Recipes: _6_, _20_:
   black;
     filling for marble monochromes, 260;
     for niellos, 274;
     for transferring, 215:
   bronzes and metal alloys, 163:
   keeping clay soft, 150:
   core for a bronze casting, 159:
   ‘egg-shell’ mosaic, _137_:
   enamels, fluxes for, _277_:
   envelope for a bronze casting, 161, 166:
   gesso, ‘grosso’ and ‘sottile,’ _249_:
   gilding, 248 f.:
   glass;
     gilding, 254;
     painting on (burnt in), 269, _310_, (unburnt), 267;
     yellow stain for, 270, _311_:
   ink, drawing, 213:
   preparing mosaic cubes, _254_:
   mucilages, 173, 213:
   oil paint, mixing, 230, _295_ f.:
   patina, artificial;
     for bronze, 166;
     for silver, _273_:
   priming, 230 ff.:
   polishing, see ‘Polishing’:
   retouching media for fresco, 222, _289_:
   sgraffito, 243 f.:
   stone, painting on, 238:
   stucco;
     for enriched vaults and ‘grotesques,’ 86, 170;
     for setting glass mosaic, 255 f., _256_;
     for setting mosaic pavements, 92;
     for preparing a wall for oil painting, 232 f.;
     retarding its setting, _150_:
   temperas, for painting, 224, _293_ f.;
     for decorative painting, etc., 240 f.:
   tempering-baths for steel, 30, 32, _112_:
   tiles, variegated, 260:
   ‘verdaccio,’ _242_:
   vitreous pastes, coloured, _311_:
   preparing walls for oil painting, 232 f.:
   wax;
     for bronze casting, 160;
     for coloured effigies, _189_;
     for modelling, 148:
   white lime, (bianco Sangiovanni) _221_:
   colouring woods for tarsia work, 262 f.

 Reliefs;
   origin of, 154;
   influence of painting and perspective on, _196_ f.;
   terminology of, _154_;
   antique, 154, _196_;
   flat (stiacciati), 156 f.;
   low (bassi), 156;
   pictorial or perspective, 154 f., _196_ f.;
   in cast bronze, _197_ f.;
   in baked clay, _197_ f.;
   in marble, _197_ f.;
   in metal repoussé, _198_;
   Andrea Pisano’s, _199_;
   Donatello’s, 156, _196_;
   Etruscan, _197_;
   Ghiberti’s, _196_;
   Greek, _197_ f.;
   Hellenistic, _197_, _301_;
   mediaeval, _196_, _199_;
   Roman, _197_.

 St. Rémy, tomb of Julii at, _197_.

 Renaissance;
   the, _7_, _11_, _21_;
   the man of the, _138_;
   marbles, _153_;
   the ‘proto-,’ _197_.

 Repetti, _Dizionario_, _118_, _119_ f.

 Repoussé process, _179_, _198_.

 Restoration of antiques, _106_, _107_, _116_.

 Retouching, on frescoes, 222, _289_.

 Ring, the, at Vienna, _56_.

 Robbia, della;
   the, _114_, _260_;
   Luca, _182_.

 Robinson, G. T., _3_, _150_.

 Rocaille, Rococo, style, _18_, 87, _89_.

 Rocco, S., statue of, _18_, 174.

 Roger, ‘of Bruges,’ ‘of Brussels,’ ‘van der Weyden,’ 227, _236_.

 Romans, the;
   their bronzes, _164_;
   their reliefs, _197_;
   their use of rustication, _132_;
   their wooden stamps for bricks, _275_.

 Rome:
   Arch;
     of Septimius Severus, _76_;
     of Titus, 82, _184_, _197_;
     Arco dei Pantani, _132_:
   S. Angelo, Castle of, 260:
   Basilica;
     Aemilia, _76_;
     of Constantine, _79_:
   Bocca della Verità, _76_:
   Campo;
     di Fiore, 78, _299_;
     Vaccino, _76_:
   Capitol, _81_:
   Carcer Mamertinus, _76_:
   Churches;
     S. Bernardo, _130_;
     Ss. Cosma e Damiano, 52;
     S. Costanza, _27_, _252_;
     S. Giovanni in Laterano, 27;
     S. Luigi dei Francesi, _41_, 52, _54_, _175_;
     S. Marco, 39;
     S. Maria,
       (in Araceli) _76_,
       (Maggiore) _79_,
       (del Popolo) _267_,
       (Sopra Minerva) _44_;
     S. Nicola in Carcere, _28_, _78_;
     S. Pietro in Montorio, _234_;
     S. Pietro in Vaticano,
       (the Constantinian basilica) 39, 263, _310_,
       (the present church) _28_, _39_, 54, 81, 86, _217_;
     S. Pietro in Vincola, 39, _40_;
     S. Salvadore del Lauro, 39;
     S. Stefano, _40_;
     S. Tommaso in Parione, _103_:
   Colosseum, 51, _53_, 74, 82:
   Column;
     of Marcus Aurelius, _183_ f.;
     of Trajan, _183_ f.:
   Corso Vittorio Emanuele, _103_, _105_:
   Forum;
     of Augustus, _132_;
     Boarium, 76;
     Olitorium, _78_;
     Romanum, _49_, _76_;
     Trajanic, _41_, _185_:
   Monte Cavallo, Colossi of, 44:
   Museum, Terme, _301_:
   Palazzo;
     dei Conservatori, _81_;
     Farnese, 28, 53, 78, 81, _104_, _131_;
     la Valle, 28;
     Madama, _52_, _131_;
     Massimi, _298_;
     Ricci, _298_;
     Spada, _299_:
   Pantheon, _28_, 41, 79, 80:
   Parione, 42, 93, _102_:
   Piazza;
     Campo di Fiore, 78, _299_;
     Farnese, _40_;
     S. Luigi dei Francesi, _128_ f.;
     di S. Marco, _40_;
     dei Massimi, _298_;
     Navona, _52_, _102_;
     della Rotonda, 27, _28_:
   Plan of Rome, _105_:
   Ritonda, Rotonda, see ‘Pantheon’:
   Temple;
     of Bacchus, 27, 93;
     of Peace, 79:
   Templum Sacrae Urbis, _52_:
   Theatre;
     of Marcellus, 76, 79;
     of Pompeius, _102_:
   Thermae;
     of Agrippa, _106_;
     of Caracalla, _110_;
     of Constantine, _44_;
     of Diocletian, _130_;
     of Nero, _41_, _130_;
     of Titus, _108_, _302_:
   Tombs on Via Latina, _301_:
   Torre Pignattara, _27_:
   ‘Treasury,’ the, 52:
   Tullianum, 76:
   Vatican;
     Appartamento Borgia, _53_, _260_, _303_;
     Belvedere, Cortile di, 36, 44, _108_, _115_ f.;
     Braccio Nuovo, _116_;
     Chapel of Nicholas V, _234_;
     coloured windows, _266_;
     Museo Pio-Clementino, _108_;
     Museum of Sculpture, _115_;
     Sala di Costantino, _233_;
     Sala a Croce Greca, _27_, _116_;
     Sala Regia, _53_, _267_;
     Sala Rotonda, _32_, _108_;
     Sistine Chapel, _53_, _216_:
   Via;
     de’ Banchi Vecchi, _299_;
     del Governo Vecchio, _103_;
     Latina, _301_;
     Maschera d’Oro, _298_, _299_;
     Parione, _103_;
     Pellegrino, _298_:
   Villa;
     Farnesina, _171_, _301_;
     Madama, _89_;
     Medici, _40_, _105_, _107_, _109_;
     Papa Giulio, _108_:
   Wall of Servius Tullius, _55_.

 Royal Institute of British Architects, _Transactions_ of, _29_, _35_,
    _38_, _101_, _102_, _265_.

 Ruby red, in glass, _270_.

 Rucellai, the family, _30_.

 Runkelstein, Schloss, _227_.

 Rustication, rustic work, 52, _56_, _65_, 67, _87_, _132_.

 Rye dough, mixed with plaster to retard its setting, _150_.

 Salamander, carved, at S. Luigi, Rome, _130_ f.

 ‘Saligni’ marbles, 45, 50.

 Salting collection, _189_.

 Salviati, Francesco, _311_.

 San Gallo;
   Antonio da, 53, 76;
   Giuliano da, _76_.

 Sansovino, Jacopo, 56.

 Sarcophagi, Sarcophagus;
   of Hadrian, _28_;
   the Marsuppini, _16_;
   of the Medici, _112_;
   of Nectanebes I, _38_;
   at Palermo, _111_;
   Roman, _197_;
   of L. C. Scipio Barbatus, _55_;
   of Piero Soderini, 42, _118_;
   in Sala a Croce Greca, Vatican, 27, _109_.

 Sassi, the family, _102_ f.

 Sasso, Egidio e Fabio, 28, 93, _102_ f.

 Scaling, of glass, 270.

 _Schedula Diversarum Artium_, see ‘Theophilus.’

 Schools of Art, _22_, _199_.

 Science and Art Department, _22_.

 Scopas, his sculpture at Tegea, _184_.

 Sculpture:
   its nature and conditions, 143 f., _179–188_:
   compared with painting, _179_:
   processes of, 148–153, _190–195_:
   use of drawing in, 207:
   imitated in painting, 240 f.:
   relief sculpture, see ‘Reliefs’:
   in bronze;
     beaten, _179_, 198;
     cast, _4_, _7_, _18_, 158 f., _199_ f.;
     chased, 276, _313_;
     stamped, 167 f.:
   in free stone, 52, 59, 61, _131_, _299_:
   in marble; 43 f.;
     technique of, 48, 151 f.:
   in porphyry and hard materials, 33, 42, _110_ f., 117 f., 174:
   in wood, 173 f.

 Seccatives, 230.

 Semper, Gottfried, _244_, _303_.

 Seravezza, 46, 50, _120_ f.

 Serpentine, 35, _113_, _118_, _127_.

 Sgraffiato, _243_.

 Sgraffito, _19_, 243 f., _298_ f.

 ‘Sicilian’ marble, _49_.

 Siena;
   Duomo, pavement in, _94_, 258;
   Baptistry, Donatello’s relief in, _196_.

 Silio, a white wood, 263.

 Silver;
   as ground for enamels, _276_ f.;
   for glass staining, _270_, _311_;
   for niello work, 273;
   work, antique, _273_.

 Sixtus IV, _53_.

 Size;
   meaning of the word, _248_;
   in grounds for gilding, _248_, 249;
   as priming, 224, 230, 237, 238;
   as a tempera, 222, _223_, 224, 241, _242_, _289_, _294_.

 Sketches, 212.

 Slate, 54, _238_.

 ‘Slave,’ the, of the Louvre, _195_.

 ‘Smerigli’ (emery veins), 47.

 Soderini, Piero, his tomb, 42, _118_.

 Springer, Anton, _112_.

 Stalactites, 87 f.

 Stamps, wooden, for bricks, _275_.

 Stazzema, _125_, 261.

 Steel, damascened, 279.

 Stemmi, _61_, _299_.

 ‘Stiacciato’ relief, 156, _182_.

 Stockholm;
   Museum at, _30_;
   Parliament buildings at, _72_.

 Stone;
   its hardening by exposure, _26_, 41;
   as painting ground, 55, 238;
   and _passim_.

 Stucco; _171_;
   antique, _287_;
   as fresco ground, _288_;
   over travertine, 53;
   enriched vaults in, 85;
   (recipes) 86;
   modelled and stamped enrichments and grotesques (recipes), 170 f.,
      244 f., _299_ ff.;
   for fixing panels of slate, 239;
   for preparing a wall for oil paint (recipes), 232, 234;
   for piece-moulding, 158;
   for rustic grottoes, etc., 89 f.;
   for setting marble mosaic pavements (recipe), 92;
   for setting glass mosaics, 255;
   for sgraffito-work (recipe), 243.

 Stylus, use of the;
   in niello work, 273;
   for sharpening lines in tempera, _293_;
   in sgraffito-work, 243;
   for transferring, 215, 231, _289_.

 ‘Subbia’ (tool for stone-working), 48, 152.

 Sulphur;
   in amalgam for niellos, _274_;
   for casting niellos, 275.

 Symonds, J. A., his translation of Michelangelo, _180_.

 Tadda, Francesco del, 32 f., _66_, _110_ ff.

 Targioni Tozzetti, _Viaggi in Toscana_, _126_.

 Tarsia work, _196_, 262 f., _303_ f.

 Tausia work, 279.

 ‘Tedesco,’ its meaning to the Italians, _134_.

 Tempera;
   meanings of the term, _223_;
   advantages of tempera process, 224, _291_ f.;
   its disadvantages, _293_ f.;
   see also ‘Painting, tempera.’

 Terminal figures, 82.

 Terni, _88_.

 ‘Terre da Campane,’ _230_.

 Teverone, the, 51, 79, 87.

 Text, Vasari’s printed, possible mistakes in, viii, _79_, _88_, _228_,
    _276_, _283_.

 Theophilus, his _Schedula_, _6_, _8_, _20_, _92_, _173_, _268_, _270_,
    _271_, _276_, _280_, _284_, _295_.

 Theophrastus, Περὶ Λίθων, _34_, _117_.

 Theseum, sculpture of, _184_.

 ‘Three block’ wood engraving, 281 f.

 ‘Tiber,’ statue of the, 36, _44_, _116_.

 ‘Tigris,’ statue of the, _36_, _116_.

 Tiles, glazed, 90, 260.

 ‘Times, The,’ referred to, _29_.

 Tin;
   effect of on enamels, _277_, _311_;
   as ingredient in bronze, _164_.

 Tintoretto, _214_, _234_.

 Tivoli, 51, 66, 79, 87, _303_.

 Toledo, don Pietro di, 47.

 Tools;
   for working bronze, 165;
   for glass cutting, 269;
   for granite, etc., 41;
   for marble, 48, 152;
   for porphyry, 32;
   for wax, 149.

 ‘Topo,’ a tool, 269.

 Torcello, mosaics at, _255_.

 ‘Torso,’ the, _116_.

 Touchstone, see ‘Paragon’;
   of Prato, 43.

 Trajan, sculpture connected with him, _197_.

 _Transactions_, _R.I.B.A._, see ‘Royal Institute of British
    Architects.’

 Transparency in glass, 267, _308_.

 Travertine; 51;
   carving in, 52 f., _131_, _299_.

 Triangle, equilateral, in Gothic architecture, _135_.

 Tribolo, _42_, 88, _260_.

 Tripoli earth, for polishing, 153, 278.

 Tuscan style, _56_, 87.

 Tzetzes, _181_, _186_.

 Udine, Giovanni da, 89.

 Urns, bathing or sepulchral, see ‘Conche.’

 Valle, della;
   family, collection, palace, etc., 28, _104_ f.;
   Cardinal Andrea, _106_ f.

 Varchi, Benedetto, _179_, _197_.

 Varnish, 232, 239, 249, _293_, _294_ f., _309_.

 ‘Vasajo,’ origin of Vasari family name, _156_.

 Vasari, the family, _156_.

 Vasari, Giorgio, the elder (‘Vasajo’), _156_ f.

 Vasari, Giorgio:
   his character and gifts, _4_, _15_ f.:
   his life and art, _5_, _7_, 33, 59, _106_, _291_:
   his visits, _56_, _103_, _237_:
   his method of mural painting in oil, 233 f.:
   his writings;
     _Letters_, _3_, _6_, _111_;
     _Lives of the Artists_, _1_, _2_, _5_, _7_, and _passim_;
     _Ragionamenti_, _3_;
     Editions of, _1_, _2_, _7_;
     Translations of, 2 f.;
     Text, printed, possible mistakes in, see ‘Text.’

 Vaults;
   brick, 86;
   stucco, 85, 170;
   in St. Peter’s, 54.

 Vellino, river, _88_.

 Venetians, the, _14_, _212_.

 Venice:
   colour printing, _281_:
   enamels of, _278_:
   frescoes at, _234_:
   glass work at, 268:
   mosaics at, _252_, _254_, _268_:
   Ducal Palace, _236_, 237:
   Church of S. Marco, _111_, _112_;
     mosaics at, _252_:
   Library of S. Marco, _56_, _237_:
   Palace of S. Marco, see ‘Ducal Palace’:
   Panattiera, 56:
   Piazza di S. Marco, 56:
   Piazzetta, _56_:
   Scuola di S. Rocco, _234_:
   Zecca (Mint), 56, _65_.

 Veniziano, Domenico, 229.

 ‘Venus’;
   crouching, in Louvre, _194_;
   Medici, _105_;
   of Milo, _195_;
   and Cupid, _112_.

 ‘Verdaccio,’ 242.

 ‘Verde’;
   ‘Antico,’ _35_;
   ‘di Prato,’ _35_, _118_, _127_.

 Verdun, _266_.

 Verhaecht, _227_.

 Verona;
   marble, 39;
   S. Maria in Organo, _306_.

 Verrocchio, _199_;
   his ‘Boy with a Dolphin,’ _33_;
   his sarcophagus in S. Lorenzo, _112_;
   his Colleoni statue, _200_.

 Versiglia, the, _125_.

 ‘Via dei Magistrati,’ see ‘Florence,’ ‘Uffizi.’

 Victoria and Albert Museum, _136_, _156_, _189_, _311_, _313_.

 Vignola, _81_.

 Villa;
   Careggi, _33_, 228;
   Farnesina, _301_, _171_;
   of Hadrian, _303_;
   Madama, _89_;
   Medici, _40_, _105_, _107_, _109_;
   Papa Giulio, _108_;
   Poggio Imperiale, _114_.

 Villani, _Chronicle_, 34, _35_.

 Vitreous pastes, coloured, _277_, _311_ f.

 Vitruvius, 25, _51_, _65_, _66_, _68_, 75, 79, 80, _135_, _146_, _171_,
    _220_, _225_, _287_, _291_.

 Volterra, Daniele da, _53_.

 ‘Volterrano’ (Volterra gypsum plaster), _249_.

 Walnut oil, see ‘Oil, nut.’

 Walnut wood;
   for carving, 174;
   as ground for inlays, 262.

 Wax;
   its use by the modeller, 148, _188_ f.;
   by the bronze founder, 160 f.;
   coloured, its preparation and use, 148 f., _188_ f.;
   as setting for portable mosaics, _136_.

 Westminster Abbey, waxen effigies at, _188_.

 Wheel, the, for working hard stones, _112_, 167, 168.

 White;
   of egg, 234, 249;
   for fresco (bianco Sangiovanni), _221_;
   lead white (biacca), _221_, 230, 236;
   for tempera, 224.

 Whitening, _241_, _242_, _294_.

 Wilkinson, Sir Gardner, _102_.

 Wilson, Charles Heath, _Life of Michelangelo_, _310_.

 Winckelmann, _104_.

 Wire-drawing plate, 280.

 Wolf, porphyry, 28, _107_.

 Wood;
   carving, 173 f.;
   engraving, 281 f.;
   inlaying, see ‘Tarsia.’

 Yellow stain for glass, 270, _311_.

 ‘Zeus,’ of Pheidias, _181_.

 Zinc, ingredient in bronze, 164.

 Zirkel, _Petrographie_, _49_.

 Zobi, _Notizie ... dei Lavori ... in Pietre Dure_, _109_, _114_ f.

  GLASGOW: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO.
                                  LTD.

-----

Footnote 1:

  Berenson, _The Drawings of the Florentine Painters_, London, 1903, 1,
  p. 18, says that Vasari ‘was an indifferent connoisseur and a poor
  historian; but he was a great appreciator ... and a passionate
  anecdote-monger. Now the Anecdote must have sharp contrasts....’

Footnote 2:

  The materials for our knowledge of Vasari and his works are derived
  from his own Autobiography and his notes on himself in the Lives of
  other artists, as well as from the _Ragionamenti_ and from the
  _Letters_, printed by Milanesi in the eighth volume of the Sansoni
  edition of Vasari’s writings, or previously printed by Gaye in the
  third volume of the _Carteggio_.

Footnote 3:

  Before Vasari published his _Lives_, at least eight editions of
  Vitruvius had appeared. The Editio Princeps, ‘curante Jo. Sulpitio
  Verulano,’ is believed to have been issued at Rome about 1486, and in
  1496 and 1497 reprints were published at Florence and at Venice. In
  1511 appeared the important edition, with emendations and
  illustrations, by the famous architect Fra Giocondo of Verona, and
  this was reprinted in the Giunta edition at Florence in 1513. Other
  editions saw the light in 1522, 1523, 1543, and 1550. An Italian
  translation was published in 1521, a French one in 1547, and in 1548
  one in German. The reverence of the architects of the Renaissance for
  Vitruvius was unbounded, and Michelangelo is said to have remarked
  that if a man could draw he would be able by the help of Vitruvius to
  become a good architect.

Footnote 4:

  Leon Battista Alberti shares with Brunelleschi the distinction of
  representing in its highest form the artistic culture of the early age
  of Humanism. His principal work _De Re Aedificatoria_, or, as it is
  also called, _De Architectura_, was published after his death, in
  1485. It is divided, like the work of Vitruvius, into ten books, and
  is an exceedingly comprehensive treatise on the architectural art both
  in theory and practice, and on the position of architecture in
  relation to civilization and to society at large. It is written in a
  noble and elevated style, and, as the title implies, in Latin. It was
  translated into Italian by Bartoli and into English by J. Leoni (three
  volumes, folio, 1726). Alberti also wrote shorter tracts on Sculpture
  and Painting, as well as other works of a less specially artistic
  order.

Footnote 5:

  See Note on ‘Porphyry and Porphyry Quarries’ at the close of the
  ‘Introduction’ to Architecture, postea, p. 101, and A on the
  Frontispiece, which gives representations in colour of the stones
  Vasari mentions in these sections, omitting those familiarly known.

Footnote 6:

  If a stone be comparatively soft when quarried and become harder after
  exposure to the air, this is due to the elimination in the air of
  moisture that it held when in the earth. In a dry climate like that of
  Egypt there is little or no moisture for stones to hold, and the
  Egyptian porphyry, Mr W. Brindley reports, is quite as hard when
  freshly quarried as after exposure. Vasari repeats this remark when he
  is dealing with granite in § 6, postea, p. 41. He has derived it from
  Alberti, who in _De Architectura_, bk. II, ch. vii, notices perfectly
  correctly that the question is one of the comparative amount of
  moisture in the stone.

Footnote 7:

  ‘Temple of Bacchus’ was the name given at the Renaissance to the
  memorial chapel containing the tomb of Constantia, daughter of
  Constantine the Great, on the Via Nomentana close to S. Agnese, and
  now known as S. Costanza. The name was suggested by the mosaics with
  vintage scenes on the barrel vault of the aisle, which are of great
  interest and beauty. In Vasari’s time this still contained the
  porphyry sarcophagus where Constantia was laid, and of this he goes on
  to speak. In 1788 Pius VI transferred it to his new Sala a Croce Greca
  in the Vatican, where it now stands.

Footnote 8:

  This is the second of the two vast cubical porphyry sarcophagi in the
  Croce Greca, and it is believed that it served once to contain the
  mortal remains of Helena, mother of Constantine. It is much finer in
  execution than the other, and exhibits a large number of figures in
  high relief, though incoherently composed. The subject may be the
  victories of Constantine. It was originally in the monument called
  ‘Torre Pignattara,’ the supposed mausoleum of Helena on the Via
  Labicana, and was transported in the twelfth century by Anastatius IV
  to the Lateran, whence Pius VI had it transferred to the Vatican. The
  restoration of these huge sarcophagi cost an immense amount in money
  and time. Massi (_Museo Pio-Clementino_, Roma, 1846, p. 157) states
  that the second one absorbed the labour of twenty-five artificers, who
  worked at it day and night for the space of nine years. Strzygowski,
  _Orient oder Rom_, 1901, notices the sarcophagi.

Footnote 9:

  Urns, or, as the Italians called them, ‘conche,’ of porphyry, basalt,
  granite and marble existed in great abundance in the Roman Thermae
  where they were used for bathing purposes. From the seventh century
  onwards the Christians adopted these for sepulchral use and placed
  them in the churches, where many of them are still to be seen
  (Lanciani, _Storia degli Scavi_, Roma, 1902, I, 3, and Marangoni,
  _Delle Cose Gentilesche_, etc., Roma, 1744). Hence Vasari speaks of
  the porphyry urn of the Piazza della Rotonda (the Pantheon) as of
  sepulchral origin, and it was indeed rumoured to have held the ashes
  of Agrippa, and to have stood once on the apex of the pediment of the
  Pantheon portico. It was however an ancient bath vessel, and was found
  when Eugenius IV, 1431–39, first excavated and paved the piazza in
  front of the Pantheon. It was placed with two Egyptian lions in front
  of the portico, where it may be seen in the view of the Piazza della
  Rotonda in G. F. Falda’s _Vedute delle Fabbriche_, etc., of 1665.
  Clement XII, 1730–40, who was a Corsini, had it transported for his
  own sepulchre to the Corsini chapel in the Lateran, where it now
  stands, with a modern cover. Vasari evidently admired this urn, and he
  mentions it again in the life of Antonio Rossellino, where he says of
  the sarcophagus of the monument of the Cardinal of Portugal in S.
  Miniato, ‘La cassa tiene il garbo di quella di porfido che è in Roma
  sulla piazza della Ritonda.’ (_Opere_, ed. Milanesi, III, 95.) See
  Lanciani, _Il Pantheon_, etc., Prima Relazione, Roma, 1882, p. 15,
  where the older authorities are quoted. Of all the bath vases of this
  kind now visible in Rome, the finest known to the writers is the urn
  of green porphyry, a rare and beautiful stone, behind the high altar
  of S. Nicola in Carcere. It is nearly six ft. long, and on each side
  has two Medusa heads in relief worked in the same piece, with the
  usual lion’s head on one side at the bottom for egress of water. The
  workmanship is superb. It may be noted that the existing baptismal
  font in St. Peter’s, in the first chapel on the left on entering, is
  the cover of the porphyry sarcophagus of Hadrian turned upside down.
  It measures 13 ft. in length by 6 ft. in width.

Footnote 10:

  In chapter VI of the ‘Introduction’ to Architecture, postea, p. 93,
  Vasari writes of the ‘casa di Messer Egidio et Fabio Sasso’ as being
  ‘in Parione.’ See Note at the end of the ‘Introduction’ to
  Architecture on ‘The Sassi, della Valle, and other Collections of
  Antiques of the early part of the sixteenth century,’ postea, p. 102
  f.

Footnote 11:

  This is the ‘Apollo’ at Naples, No. 6281. See Note as above.

Footnote 12:

  See Note above mentioned.

Footnote 13:

  Now lost.

Footnote 14:

  Now in the Boboli Gardens at Florence. See Note on the Sassi, etc.,
  Collections.

Footnote 15:

  See Note on ‘The Revival of Sculpture in Porphyry,’ postea, p. 110 f.

Footnote 16:

  Reciprocating saws of the kind Vasari mentions, mostly of soft steel
  or iron, and also circular saws, are in use at the present day, the
  abrasives being emery, or a new material called ‘carborundum.’ This
  consists in minute crystals of intense hardness gained by fusing by an
  electric current a mixture of clay and similar substances. See _The
  Times_, Engineering Supplement, Oct. 31, 1906.

Footnote 17:

  It needs hardly to be said that the ancients had no ‘secrets’ such as
  Vasari hints at. Mr W. Brindley believes that the antique methods of
  quarrying and working hard stones were ‘precisely the same as our own
  were until a few years ago,’ that is to say that the blocks were
  detached from the quarry and split with metal wedges, dressed roughly
  to shape with large and small picks, and ‘rubbed down with flat stone
  rubbers and sand, then polished with bronze or copper rubbers with
  emery powder’ (_Transactions_, _R.I.B.A._, 1888, p. 25). At a very
  early date in Egyptian history, even before the dynastic period, the
  hardest stones (not excepting porphyry) were successfully manipulated,
  and vases and bowls of these materials cut with exquisite precision.
  Professor Flinders Petrie found evidence that at the epoch of the
  great pyramids tubular drills and bronze saws set with gem-stones
  (corundum) were employed by the Egyptians in hollowing basalt
  sarcophagi and cutting the harder stones (_The Pyramids and Temples of
  Ghizeh_, London, 1883, p. 173 f.). There is however no evidence of the
  use of these advanced appliances by the Greeks or Romans. It must not
  be forgotten that even before the age of metals the neolithic
  artificers of western Europe could not only cut and bore, but also
  ornament with patterns, stone hammer-heads of the most intractable
  materials, with the aid only of pieces of wood twirled or rubbed on
  the place and plentifully fed with sand and water. The stone axe- and
  hammer-heads so common in pre-historic collections were bored with
  tubular drills, made probably from reeds, which cut out a solid core.
  Such cores can still be seen in partly-pierced hammer-heads in the
  Museum at Stockholm, and elsewhere.

Footnote 18:

  Fig. 1 shows the inscription of which Vasari writes and the situation
  of it on the riser of the step is seen on Plate II. The porphyry slab
  is 3 ft. 5 in. long and 5½ in. high. The tongues at the ends are in
  separate pieces. The letters, nineteen not eighteen in number, are
  close upon 2 in. in height and are cleanly cut with =V=-shaped
  incisions. The illustration shows the form of the letters which Vasari
  justly praises. The name ‘Oricellario’ or -us was derived by the
  distinguished Florentine family that bore it from the plant Oricello,
  orchil, which was employed for making a beautiful purple dye, from the
  importation of which from the Levant the family gained wealth and
  importance. The shortened popular form of the name ‘Rucellai’ is that
  by which the family is familiarly known. Giovanni Rucellai gave a
  commission to Alberti to complete the façade of S. Maria Novella,
  which was carried out by 1470. The Bernardo Rucellai of the
  inscription, the son of Giovanni, was known as a historian, and owned
  the gardens where the Platonic Academy had at one time its place of
  meeting. Fineschi, in his _Forestiero Istruito in S. Maria Novella_,
  Firenze, 1790, says that Bernardo desired to be buried in front of the
  church and had the inscription cut for sepulchral purposes. The
  existence of sepulchral ‘avelli’ of distinguished Florentine families
  at the front of the church makes this seem likely, and in this case
  the lettering would be after Alberti’s time, though as Fineschi
  believes, the earliest existing work of the kind in hard stone at
  Florence. See Rev. J. Wood Brown, _S. Maria Novella_, Edinburgh, 1902,
  p. 114.

Footnote 19:

  After the fashion of an ordinary carpenter’s ‘brace.’

Footnote 20:

  See Note on ‘The Porphyry Tazza of the Sala Rotonda of the Vatican,’
  at the close of the ‘Introduction’ to Architecture, postea, p. 108.

Footnote 21:

  See Note at the end of the ‘Introduction’ to Architecture, postea, p.
  110 f., on ‘Francesco del Tadda and, the Revival of Sculpture in
  Porphyry.’

Footnote 22:

  About 4 ft. 9 in. In a letter of May 1557 in Gaye, _Carteggio_, II,
  419, Vasari mentions the work as nearly finished.

Footnote 23:

  The palace in question is the well-known Palazzo Vecchio at Florence,
  which was adapted for the Grand-ducal residence largely by Vasari
  himself under the Grand Dukes Cosimo and his successor Francesco. The
  fountain is the one at present in the courtyard of the palace,
  carrying the beautiful bronze figure of a boy with a dolphin, by
  Verrocchio. This ‘putto’ was brought in from the famous Medicean Villa
  at Careggi, the seat of the Platonic Academy, for the purpose of
  completing the fountain of which Vasari here gives an account. The
  porphyry work, both in design and execution, is worthy of the
  beautiful bronze that surmounts it. The basin rests on a well-turned
  dwarf pillar of porphyry and this on a square base of the same
  material. The surfaces are true and the arrises sharp, and the whole
  is carried out in a workmanlike manner, and by no means betrays a
  ‘prentice hand.’

Footnote 24:

  See Vasari’s Life of Michelangelo, _Opere_, ed. Milanesi, VII, 260.

Footnote 25:

  That is Cosimo ‘Pater Patriae,’ who died at Careggi in 1464. The
  portrait in question is shown on Plate III. For what is known about
  this and other works by Francesco del Tadda, see postea, p. 113 f.

Footnote 26:

  See Note on ‘Porphyry and Porphyry Quarries,’ postea, p. 101.

Footnote 27:

  This remark is evidently derived by Vasari from Leon Battista Alberti,
  who writes as follows in _De Re Aedificatoria_, Lib. II, ‘At nos de
  porphirite lapide compertum habemus non modo flammis non excoqui,
  verum et contigua quaeque circumhereant saxa intra fornacem reddere ut
  ignibus ne quidquam satis exquoquantur.’ The sense of ‘excoqui’ in
  this passage, and of Vasari’s ‘cuocer,’ is somewhat obscure, but can
  be interpreted by reference to old writings on stones, in which great
  importance is given to their comparative power of resistance to fire.
  See Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, XXXVI, 22, etc., etc. Theophrastus, Περὶ
  Λίθων, § 4, has the following: ‘Stones have many special
  properties ... for some are consumed by fire and others resist it ...
  and in respect of the action of the fire and the burning they show
  many differences....’ The ‘excoqui’ of Alberti probably refers to the
  resistance of porphyry to the fire as compared with the submission to
  it of stones like limestone, which are ‘burnt out’ or calcined by the
  heat. Vasari’s ‘non si cuoce’ is not an adequate translation of
  Alberti’s word ‘_ex_coqui.’ With a blast heat porphyry fuses to a sort
  of obsidian or slag, but a moderate heat only causes it to lose its
  fine purple hue and become grey. This is the ‘rawness’ implied in
  Vasari’s word ‘incrudelisce.’ To us rawness suggests raw meat which is
  redder in colour than cooked, but the Italians, who are not great meat
  eaters, would have in their minds the action of fire on cakes and
  similar comestibles that darken when baked, and an Italian artist
  would think too of the action of fire on clay, ‘che viene rossa quando
  ella è cotta’ as he says in chapter XXV of the ‘Introduction’ to
  Painting. See Frontispiece, where A^1, compared with A, shows the
  effect of fire on the stone.

Footnote 28:

  The two porphyry columns, that stand one on each side of Ghiberti’s
  Old Testament gates at the eastern door of the Baptistry of Florence,
  serve to point a moral about the untrustworthiness of popular sayings.
  When these apply to monuments it usually happens that the monument
  itself hopelessly discredits the saying. The porphyry columns in
  question are perfectly normal in colour and show no recognizable trace
  of the action of fire. Villani (_Chronicle_, bk. IV, ch. 31) says of
  these columns ‘The Pisani sent them to Florence covered with scarlet
  cloth, and some said that before they sent them they put them in the
  fire for envy.’ If we rationalize a little we can imagine that the
  scarlet cloth, the use of which by the Pisans in connection with
  porphyry shows a most lamentable absence of taste in colour, would at
  first sight seem to take the colour out of the porphyry and make it
  look grey through contrast. Hence may have arisen the impression which
  gave rise to the saying. Boccaccio, in his commentary on the passage
  in Dante (_Inferno_, XV, 67), in which the ‘blindness’ of the
  Florentines is referred to, notices this affair of the columns as one
  explanation of this accusation against his countrymen.

Footnote 29:

  On the subject of serpentine some misapprehension exists.
  Mineralogists apply the term to a soft stone of a green hue with long
  curling markings through it, which in their form suggest lacertine
  creatures and account for the name of the stone. It derives its colour
  from the presence of a large percentage of manganese in union with
  silica, and contains twelve or so per cent. of water. A penknife
  scores it easily. The ‘Verde di Prato,’ a dark stone used in bands on
  Tuscan buildings, of which there is question in a subsequent section,
  postea, p. 43, is a species of true serpentine.

  On the other hand the word ‘serpentine’ is in common use for a dark
  green stone of quite a different kind, that occurs very commonly in
  ancient Roman tesselated pavements, and it is this false serpentine
  that Vasari has in view. It is very hard indeed, and a penknife does
  not mark it. Professor Bonney describes it as ‘a somewhat altered
  porphyritic basalt,’ and it is full of scattered crystals of a paler
  green composed of plagioclasic felspar. These crystals average about
  the size of grains of maize and they sometimes cross each other, thus
  justifying Vasari’s description of them. A specimen is B, on the
  Frontispiece. This stone was found in Egypt, and it is probably the
  ‘Augustan’ and ‘Tiberian’ stone mentioned by Pliny, _Hist. Nat._,
  XXXVI, 7. See _Transactions_, _R.I.B.A._, 1888, p. 9. The chief quarry
  of it however was in the Peloponnesus to the south of Sparta, and the
  produce of this is called by Pliny, loc. cit., ‘Lacedaemonium viride.’
  It should be noted that ‘Verde Antico,’ a green marble of which the
  chief quarries are in Thessaly, is distinct from both the true and the
  false ‘serpentine.’

Footnote 30:

  Cipollaccio. It is not clear what is the difference, if any exist,
  between the stone thus called and the ‘Cipollino’ which Vasari
  discusses in a later section, postea, p. 49. The latter is a name in
  universal employment, but the term ‘Cipollaccio’ is not known to
  Cavaliere Marchionni, the courteous Director of the Florentine State
  Manufactory of Mosaics, nor is it recognized at Carrara. On the other
  hand it is given as the name of a marble in Tomaseo’s _Dizionario_
  (though probably only on the strength of this mention in Vasari) and a
  stone worker at Settignano claimed to know and use the word. On the
  material see the Note on ‘Cipollino,’ postea, p. 49. The terminations
  ‘-accio’ and ‘-ino’ are dear to the Florentines—Mas_accio_ and
  Maso_lino_ will occur to everyone.

Footnote 31:

  This is the ‘Cortile di Belvedere’ where the Laocoon and Apollo
  Belvedere are located. See Note 30.

Footnote 32:

  On Michelangelo’s niche and fountain see the Note on ‘The Cortile of
  the Belvedere in the Vatican in the sixteenth century,’ at the end of
  the ‘Introduction’ to Architecture, postea, p. 115. The ‘river god’ is
  the ‘Tigris’ of the Vatican.

Footnote 33:

  Vasari’s description of the variegated stones called breccias is clear
  and good. Corsi, _Delle Pietre Antiche_, Roma, 1845, p. 139, defines
  breccias as ‘marbles formed of numerous fragments of other marbles
  either of one colour or of different colours, embedded in a calcareous
  cement.’ The mineralogist distinguishes breccias from conglomerates by
  the fact that in the former the fragments embedded are angular, in the
  latter round like pebbles. The fragments need not be of marble. These
  breccias were greatly used at the Renaissance, as Vasari indicates,
  for the framing of doorways and for chimney pieces, but it may be
  questioned whether they are really suitable for such architectural
  use. For door jambs and similar constructive members a self-coloured
  stone, with its greater severity of effect, would be preferable. On
  the other hand, for panels and inlays and decorative uses generally,
  the variegated stones are quite in place. See C, D on the
  Frontispiece.

Footnote 34:

  See Note on ‘Tuscan Marble Quarries’ postea, p. 119 f.

Footnote 35:

  S. Giusto, commonly called S. Giusto a Monte Martiri, lies by Monte
  Rantoli, between the valleys of the Ema and Greve, to the south of
  Florence.

Footnote 36:

  Breccia columns answering to this description are to be seen in the
  lower part of the Boboli Gardens to the west of the ‘island basin’
  with John of Bologna’s ‘Oceanus.’

Footnote 37:

  The Egyptian breccia is found at Hamamat to the east of Luxor. It
  consists, Mr Brindley writes, in rich-coloured silicious fragments
  cemented together, and is very difficult to work and to polish, ‘owing
  to the cementing matrix being frequently harder than the boulders.’
  Its general colour is greenish and it is called sometimes ‘Breccia
  Verde.’ The most important known work executed in this breccia is the
  grand sarcophagus of Nectanebes I, about 378 B.C., now in the British
  Museum. It is on the left in the large Hall a little beyond the
  Rosetta stone. _Transactions_, _R.I.B.A._, 1888, p. 24 ff.

Footnote 38:

  Signor Cornish, the courteous castellan of the Royal Palace, believes
  this to be the urn that now serves as the basin of the fountain
  surmounted with a figure of the Arno, near the Annalessa gate of the
  Boboli Gardens. It has two masks carved on the front, as is common in
  antique _conche_ of the kind.

Footnote 39:

  On entering the porch or narthex of St. Peter’s by the central
  archway, the visitor may note on each side of the external opening a
  column of breccia, or strictly speaking of ‘pavonazzetto brecciato,’
  over twenty-five feet in height. They are worn, patched, and
  discoloured, and evidently come from some earlier building. It can be
  reasonably conjectured that these are the two columns to which Vasari
  refers, and that they were originally in the old basilica which was
  being replaced in Vasari’s time by the existing structure. Vasari
  would see them in their original position forming part of the
  colonnade between nave and aisles, for the entrance part of the old
  Constantinian basilica was still standing in the sixteenth century,
  and the columns were only removed to their present position when Paul
  V constructed the existing façade at the beginning of the century
  following.

Footnote 40:

  The familiar red Verona marble is not a true breccia, but a fossil
  marble.

Footnote 41:

  ‘Granite’ is from the Italian ‘granito,’ which means the ‘grained’
  stone.

Footnote 42:

  The ‘grandissimi vasi de’ bagni,’ to which Vasari here refers, are
  those vast granite bath-shaped urns, some twenty feet long, of which
  the best known is probably the specimen that stands by the obelisk in
  the centre of the amphitheatre of the Boboli Gardens at Florence.
  This, with a fellow urn, that stands not far off in the Piazzale della
  Meridiana, came from the Villa Medici at Rome, and they may have been
  seen in Rome by Vasari before they were placed in that collection. No
  such urns are now to be found in or about any of the three churches at
  Rome here mentioned by Vasari. Documents however, recently published
  in the first volume of Lanciani’s _Storia degli Scavi_, pp. 3–5, show
  that there stood formerly in the Piazza S. Salvatore in Lauro, north
  west from the Piazza Navona, a ‘conca maximae capacitatis,’ to which
  Vasari no doubt refers. Two other such conchae were found in the
  Thermae of Agrippa, and one was placed by Paul II, 1464–71, in the
  Piazza di S. Marco, which was then called ‘Piazza della Conca di S.
  Marco,’ while the other was located by Paul III (Farnese), 1534–49, in
  front of his palace. Cardinal Odoardo Farnese afterwards united the
  two and formed with them the two fountains now in the Piazza Farnese.
  Lanciani also mentions a ‘conca di bigio in S. Pietro in Vinculis.’
  There is a fine specimen, which may be one of those Vasari has
  mentioned, in front of the little church of S. Stefano at the back of
  St. Peter’s. We wish cordially to thank Signor Cornish, of the Royal
  Palace, Florence, for information kindly given about the Boboli
  monuments.

Footnote 43:

  The quarries opened by the Romans in Elba are now practically
  abandoned. The Catalogue to the Italian Section of the London
  International Exhibition of 1862 speaks of the granites of Elba as
  ‘but little used, although blocks and columns of almost any size may
  be had.’ In the late mediaeval and Renaissance period however, the
  quarries of Elba were worked, and the granite columns of the Baptistry
  of Pisa were cut there in the twelfth century, while Cosimo I
  extracted thence the granite block out of which he cut the tazza of
  the Boboli Gardens mentioned by Vasari a few sentences further on.
  Jervis, _I Tesori Sotterranei dell’ Italia_, Torino, 1889, p. 315,
  speaks of the remains of Roman quarrying works to be seen on the
  Island. He believes that the grey columns of the Pantheon (see Note
  infra) are Elban, and Cellini (_Scultura_, ch. vi) claims an Elban
  origin for the granite column of S. Trinità, Florence, which is
  certainly antique and of Roman provenance, see postea, p. 110 f.

Footnote 44:

  The portico of the Pantheon is now supported by sixteen monoliths of
  granite nearly 40 ft. high. Seven of these in the foremost row are of
  grey granite, the eighth (that at the north-east angle) and all those
  behind are of red granite. The present portico is a reconstruction by
  Hadrian in octostyle form of the original decastyle portico built by
  Agrippa. Agrippa’s portico had columns of a grey granite called
  ‘granito del foro,’ because it is the same kind that is used for the
  columns of the Forum of Trajan (Basilica Ulpia). This according to
  Corsi, _Delle Pietre Antiche_, Roma, 1845, is Egyptian from Syene, the
  Lapis Psaronius of Pliny, and Professor Lanciani, who has kindly
  written in reply to our question on the subject, endorses this
  opinion, though Jervis, see above, thinks the grey Pantheon columns
  are Elban. When Hadrian reconstructed the portico, he added columns of
  red granite, which are admitted by all to be Egyptian. The two columns
  at the east of the present portico were brought in in the year 1666 to
  fill gaps caused by the fall of the two Hadrianic ones. They came from
  the Baths of Nero and were found near S. Luigi dei Francesi. See
  postea, p. 128 f.

Footnote 45:

  See Note 4, ante, p. 26.

Footnote 46:

  The form of the pick Vasari seems to have in his mind is given in the
  sketch, C, Fig. 2, postea, p. 48. Among other tools figured in the
  illustration, A and B are some that are employed at this day in Egypt
  for the working of hard stones.

Footnote 47:

  This tazza is still in evidence and serves as the basin of the great
  fountain in the ‘island’ lake in the western part of the Boboli
  Gardens. It is said that Duke Cosimo extracted a second tazza larger
  than this one from the Elban quarry but it was unfortunately broken.
  Signor Cornish says the fragments are still to be seen. The sculptor
  Tribolo was sent to Elba to obtain the basins. Of the ‘tavola’ or
  table nothing is known.

Footnote 48:

  In this apparently innocent section Vasari has mixed up notices of
  some half-dozen different kinds of stone, on most of which his ideas
  are somewhat vague. Hence a separate Note is required, and this will
  be found at the end of the ‘Introduction’ to Architecture, postea, p.
  117 (‘Paragon and other Stones associated with it by Vasari’). The
  letters (a), (b), etc., are referred to in the Note.

Footnote 49:

  The ‘Apollo’ at Naples, in basalt, no. 6262. See Note, postea, p. 104.

Footnote 50:

  The porphyry ‘Apollo’ at Naples, no. 6281. See Note, as above.

Footnote 51:

  The five eastern window openings of S. Miniato are filled with slabs
  of antique pavonazzetto with red-purple markings, nearly two inches
  thick and measuring in surface about 9 ft. by 3 ft. The windows are
  square headed. The slabs transmit the light unequally according to the
  darker or lighter patches in their markings, but the effect is
  pleasing. Similar window fillings are to be seen at Orvieto. ‘Almost
  any marble,’ it has been said, ‘with crystalline statuary ground, an
  inch thick, placed on the sunny side of a church in Italy would admit
  sufficient light for worship, but it would not do in our variable
  climate.’ The so-called Onyx marbles of Algeria and Mexico, as well as
  Oriental alabasters, are specially suitable for the purpose here in
  view. The ‘white and yellowish’ eastern marbles that Vasari writes of
  were probably of this kind.

Footnote 52:

  By ‘the same quarries’ Vasari means, no doubt, those of Egypt and
  Greece, of Carrara, of Prato, etc., mentioned in § 7 in connection
  with ‘paragon.’ On the subject see the Note on ‘Tuscan Marble
  Quarries,’ postea, p. 119f.

Footnote 53:

  The reference is to the two so-called ‘Horse-Tamers’ opposite the
  Quirinal Palace at Rome, that probably once stood in front of the
  Thermae of Constantine, which occupied the slope of the Quirinal. The
  figures of the youths, perhaps representing the Dioscuri, are eighteen
  feet high, and the material was long ago pronounced Thasian marble
  (see Matz-Duhn, _Antike Bildwerke in Rom_, Leipzig, 1881, I, 268). The
  works are Roman copies of Greek originals. They have recently been
  overhauled, with very good result as regards their appearance. The
  sculptor, Professor Ettore Ferrari, who superintended this work,
  reports that the material is ‘marmo greco,’ which may be held to
  settle the question in favour of Greek as against Luna marble.

Footnote 54:

  The ‘Nile’ is now in the Braccio Nuovo of the Vatican, the
  fellow-statue, the ‘Tiber,’ see ante, p. 36, in the Louvre at Paris.
  They are said to have been discovered at Rome early in the sixteenth
  century, near S. Maria Sopra Minerva where was the Temple of Isis and
  Serapis, and Pope Leo X had them placed in the Cortile di Belvedere of
  the Vatican. They were removed to Paris in ‘the year X’ by Napoleon,
  and in 1815 the ‘Nile’ was sent back to Rome, the ‘Tiber’ remaining in
  the Louvre. The ‘Nile’ is much the better work of art and is a copy or
  a study from an Alexandrian original, perhaps the ‘Nilus’ in basalt,
  which, according to Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, XXXVI, 7, Augustus dedicated
  in the Temple of Peace. Amelung, in his _Sculpturen des Vaticanischen
  Museums_, only states that the ‘Nile’ is in ‘großkörnigem Marmor.’ The
  material of the statue certainly differs from that of the restored
  parts, and we should guess it as Pentelic marble repaired with
  Carrara. About the ‘Tiber,’ Froener, in the Louvre Catalogue, states
  that it is of Pentelic marble, and it is so labelled. Our measurements
  show that both statues required blocks of the dimensions 10 ft. by 5
  ft. by 5 ft. in height. It may be noted that the finest statuary
  marble known, that of the island of Paros, is not to be obtained in
  very large blocks. That out of which the Hermes of Praxiteles has been
  carved must have measured about 8 ft. by 5 ft. by 3 ft. 6 in. and is
  considered an exceptionally fine block. Pentelic and Carrara marble
  can be obtained in much larger pieces. We saw not long ago in the
  modern quarries behind Mount Pentelicus a block nearly 20 ft. in cube.
  One seventeen feet long has recently been cut in the Monte Altissimo
  quarries in the Carrara mountains for a copy of the ‘David’ of
  Michelangelo. A piece of Monte Altissimo marble of the best quality is
  shown as J on the Frontispiece.

Footnote 55:

  This remark shows a just observation on the part of Vasari. The Greek
  nose is markedly different from the Florentine. The latter, as may be
  seen in the ‘St. George’ of Donatello, or the ‘David’ of Michelangelo,
  has more shape than the classical nose. There is more difference
  marked between the nasal bone and the cartilaginous prolongation
  towards the tip, and there is more modelling about the nostril, which
  the Italian sculptors make thinner and more sensitive.

Footnote 56:

  The Carfagnana, or more properly Garfagnana, is the name applied to
  the upper part of the valley of the Serchio, between the Apennines and
  the Apuan Alps, on the western slopes of which the marble quarries are
  situated. See Note on ‘Tuscan Marble Quarries,’ postea, p. 119 f., for
  the different marbles and their provenance.

Footnote 57:

  Benvenuto Cellini, _Scultura_, ch. iv, mentions this black marble from
  Carrara, which he says is very hard and brittle and difficult to work.
  Black marble is still quarried in the Carrara district, but only to a
  small extent.

Footnote 58:

  The grey marble is that known now as ‘Bardiglio’; the grey-veined
  ‘Marmo-’ or ‘Bardiglio-’ ‘fiorito’; the red, ‘Breccia.’

Footnote 59:

  For ‘Cipollino’ see footnote 70 on p. 49, postea.

Footnote 60:

  The ‘Mischiati’ are the variegated stones we know as ‘Breccias,’
  already noticed in § 5. Vasari explains the names ‘Saligni’ and
  ‘Campanini’ in § 10. The terms are not now in use.

Footnote 61:

  The ‘David’ stood formerly on the left hand side as one entered the
  gateway of the Ducal Palace, or Palazzo Vecchio. It is 15 feet high.
  In 1873 it was removed, and is now in the Academy, but Bandinello’s
  group still holds its original position to the right of the entrance,
  on the side towards the Uffizi.

Footnote 62:

  The existing figure of Neptune is the work of Ammanati, to whom
  Florence owes the stately Ponte S. Trinità. The subsidiary figures of
  sea-deities on the fountain are by other hands.

Footnote 63:

  See Note, postea, p. 119 f.

Footnote 64:

  On the subject of the Seravezza quarries and their exploitation by
  Michelangelo see Note, as above. With regard to the Façade of S.
  Lorenzo much might be said, as the project for its completion has now
  again come forward into prominence. See articles by Sig. B. Supino in
  _L’Arte_, Anno IV, fasc. 7, and M. Marcel Reymond in the _Revue
  Archéologique_ for 1906. It is well known that Brunelleschi, who
  reconstructed the basilica in the fifteenth century, left the façade
  incomplete and with no indication of his design for it. As it was the
  church of the Medici, the popes of this family, Leo X and Clement VII,
  furthered by means of a competition a grand project for its
  completion; and in this work Michelangelo was for many years involved.
  Drawings of his for the proposed façade are to be seen in the Casa
  Buonarroti, and he prepared marbles, as noticed in the Note, postea,
  p. 119 f., but the preparations proved abortive.

  What Vasari says about Michelangelo’s façade that it ‘è oggi abbozzata
  fuor della porta di detta chiesa,’ and that there is one column on the
  spot, is interesting but not very easy to understand. Milanesi, in a
  note on this passage in his edition of Vasari, I, 119, going one
  better than the Lemonnier editors, gives a circumstantial account to
  the effect that ‘The preliminary work (abbozzata) which was outside
  the church in the days of Vasari, was buried in the first years of the
  seventeenth century, along with other architectural fragments, in a
  trench excavated on the piazza along the left side of the church.’
  Unfortunately among the authorities at S. Lorenzo this statement is
  smiled at as a mere popular legend, but it is hoped that in connection
  with the long-delayed completion, which is now again on the _tapis_,
  the truth on this matter will come to light.

Footnote 65:

  Milanesi remarks, ad loc., that for ‘Pietrasanta’ Vasari should have
  written ‘Carrara,’ as the quarries at the latter place were actually
  exploited by the ancients, whereas the Pietrasanta workings were only
  opened up in the time of Michelangelo. See postea, p. 122. The
  Pietrasanta people however do claim that the Romans were at work among
  their hills.

Footnote 66:

  There are abundant instances both from Greek and from Roman times of
  statues, heads, architectural members, columns, and the like, blocked
  out in the quarries, and still lying unfinished as they were left many
  hundreds of years ago.

Footnote 67:

  Vasari gives a notice of Giovanni da Nola, whose surname was Merliano,
  in the _Lives_ of Alfonso Lombardi and other sculptors. See _Opere_,
  ed. Milanesi, V, 94 f. He there describes the tomb mentioned above,
  which was to have been transported to Spain, but owing to the death of
  the viceroy, Don Pietro, Marquis of Villafranca, it has remained in S.
  Giacomo at Naples.

Footnote 68:

  Some of the tools of sculptors and masons referred to by Vasari are
  shown in Fig. 2, E-J, above.

Footnote 69:

  A worker in stones at Settignano knew of drills of the weight of about
  twelve pounds each, and thought twenty pounds conceivable, for very
  large work.

Footnote 70:

  Vasari seems to refer to the common greyish marble popularly called
  ‘Sicilian.’ There are finer kinds of veined marble called ‘fioriti,’
  ‘flowered,’ including ‘marmi fioriti’ and ‘bardigli fioriti,’ the last
  in two shades of grey.

Footnote 71:

  i.e., the breccias noticed in § 5.

Footnote 72:

  ‘Cipollino’ marble, a very familiar material, receives its name from
  ‘cipolla,’ an onion, but there is a curious divergence of opinion as
  to the reason of the appellation. (1) The onion colour the marble
  shows in many specimens; (2) the onion-like shape of the large bossy
  markings which occur in the marble; (3) the fact that it is disposed
  to scale away under the influence of the weather like the coats of an
  onion; and (4) the concentric curves in which the edges of these coats
  are seen to lie in a section across the grain, have all been adduced
  as explanatory of the name. Herrmann in his _Steinbruchindustrie_,
  Berlin, 1899, p. 68, pronounces for the third, and this is also the
  opinion of Corsi, who says, _Pietre Antiche_, p. 97, ‘gli scarpellini
  lo conoscono sotto il nome di cipollino, per la ragione che,
  trovandosi fra la sostanza calcare di tel marmo lunghi e spessi strati
  di mica, facilmente su tali strati si divide a somiglianza della
  cipolla.’ Zirkel however, in his _Lehrbuch der Petrographie_, Leipzig,
  1894, III, 452, pronounces for the fourth, which seems on the whole
  the one to be preferred. There are two cipollino columns standing in
  the Roman Forum a little to the east of the temple of Antoninus and
  Faustina, famous for its monoliths of this same marble, that in the
  concentric wavy lines marking the alternate layers in the stone remind
  us curiously of an onion cut in half. See for a specimen H on the
  Frontispiece.

Footnote 73:

  Vasari explains the name ‘saligno’ as ‘salt-like.’ The term is not
  recognized at Carrara, nor in the Florentine manufactory of Mosaics.

Footnote 74:

  The term ‘campanino’ for a kind of marble is not known now in the
  Carrara district.

Footnote 75:

  About 10 miles south east of Carrara.

Footnote 76:

  Near Pietrasanta in the Apuan Alps.

Footnote 77:

  On the promontory of Piombino, opposite Elba.

Footnote 78:

  In the so-called Pisan Mountains between Pisa and Lucca. For these
  places and their quarries see Note on ‘Tuscan Marble Quarries,’
  postea, p. 119 f.

Footnote 79:

  See Note, as above, especially p. 126.

Footnote 80:

  There are great quarries of this stone below Tivoli near the course of
  the ancient Anio, now Teverone. The station Bagni on the Roma-Tivoli
  railway is close to them. Those near the place called Barco were
  exploited by the ancient Romans, while Bernini derived the stone for
  the colonnades in front of St. Peter’s from the quarries called ‘Le
  Fosse,’ a little to the north of the former. Vitruvius, _De Arch._,
  II, vii, 2, writes of the ‘Tiburtina saxa’ as resisting all
  destructive agencies save that of fire, and the remark is repeated by
  Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, XXXVI, 22. Vasari’s account of its origin is
  correct. It is a deposit of lime in water, and the cavities in it are
  partly caused by plants, moss, etc., round which the deposit has
  formed itself and which of course have long ago decayed away. See O on
  the Frontispiece. The stone did not come into use at Rome until about
  the last century of the Republic, and it was not, like peperino, one
  of the old traditional building materials.

Footnote 81:

  Vasari evidently refers to the remains of the Templum Sacrae Urbis
  behind the present church of Ss. Cosma e Damiano, to which was affixed
  the ancient ‘Capitoline’ plan of Rome.

Footnote 82:

  See the remarks on Rusticated masonry in § 20, and Notes, postea, pp.
  65 and 132.

Footnote 83:

  On the ‘round temple,’ and its designer, ‘Maestro Gian,’ see Note on
  the subject, postea, p. 128 f.

Footnote 84:

  S. Luigi dei Francesi is the national church of the French, and is
  situated close to the Palazzo Madama, the meeting place of the Italian
  Senate, near the Piazza Navona. The present edifice was built by
  Giacomo della Porta and consecrated in 1589. See Note, postea, p. 128
  f.

Footnote 85:

  For which it offers in the cavities above spoken of an excellent key.

Footnote 86:

  Traces of these stucco decorations are still to be seen in the public
  entrance to the Colosseum next the Esquiline. They are said to have
  been taken as models by some of the plaster-workers of the
  Renaissance. See Vasari’s Life of Giovanni da Udine, _Opere_, VI, 553.

Footnote 87:

  This is the so-called ‘Sala Regia’ which serves as a vestibule to the
  Sistine Chapel. Sixtus IV planned it and San Gallo enlarged it and
  began the adornment of the vault with plaster work, which was carried
  on afterwards by Perino del Vaga and Daniele da Volterra (Pistolesi,
  _Il Vaticano Descritto_, VIII, 89). It is the most richly decorated of
  all the Vatican apartments, but is florid and overladen. The stucco
  enrichment of the roof is heavy, and the figures in the same material
  by Daniele da Volterra that are sprawling on the tops of the doorways
  and on the cornices are of the extravagant later Renaissance type. The
  contrast between this showy hall and the exquisitely treated
  Appartamento Borgia of earlier date is very marked.

Footnote 88:

  The Farnese Palace is in the main the work of Antonio da San Gallo,
  the younger, who at his death in 1546 had carried up the façade nearly
  to the cornice and completed the ground story and half the second
  story of the cortile. Michelangelo finished the second or middle story
  of the cortile, as far as the architecture went, according to San
  Gallo’s design, and added the third story from his own. His are also
  the enrichments of the frieze of the second order in the cortile, and
  he has the chief credit for the noble external cornice, of which
  Vasari writes in this section. It is now rather the fashion to
  criticize severely Michelangelo’s architectural forms, and G. Clausse,
  _Les San Gallo_, Paris, 1901, condemns his third story of the cortile
  and says of his frieze (p. 85), ‘Michelange fit ajouter dans la frise
  ces guirlandes et ces mascarons en stuc qui enlèvent à ce beau
  portique le caractère de grandeur simple et d’harmonieuse majesté dû à
  ses proportions mêmes.’ It will not escape notice that Vasari regards
  these ornaments as not in stucco but in the travertine itself. On the
  question thus raised Monseigneur Duchesne, the distinguished Director
  of the French School at Rome which is housed in the Farnese, has had
  the kindness in reply to our inquiry to say that so far as can be
  ascertained without the use of scaffolding the ornaments of the frieze
  are in stucco, with the exception of the Fleur-de-lys which occur in
  the position of key-stones above the centre of each window arch. These
  are in travertine, as are the ornaments (trophies of arms etc.) carved
  on the metopes of the frieze of the order of the ground story in the
  cortile. The point has some interest in connection with the travertine
  carvings by the French artist at S. Luigi dei Francesi (see postea, p.
  131), and the suggestion of M. Marcel Reymond (loc. cit.) that the
  Italians of the first half of the fifteenth century were not
  accustomed, as the French were, to execute decorative carvings in soft
  stone.

Footnote 89:

  The exterior of St. Peter’s is built of travertine, and a walk round
  it gives an opportunity for a study of the fine effect of the stone
  when used on a vast scale. The details of construction in the
  interior, which are lauded by Vasari, are now concealed under the
  decoration that covers all the interior surfaces.

Footnote 90:

  Lavagna is on the coast about half way between Genoa and Spezzia. The
  slate of the district is pronounced by Mr Brindley to be of poor
  quality and liable to bleach to a dirty ochre colour like that of
  brown paper. In the Official Catalogue of the Italian section of the
  International Exhibition of 1862 it is stated that in modern times
  also ‘large jars or reservoirs for containing oil, made of this slate,
  are employed in Liguria, as well as in the principal maritime dépôts
  of the oil trade.’

Footnote 91:

  Peperino is a volcanic product in origin quite distinct from
  travertine. It consists of ashes and fragments of different materials
  compacted together and is called ‘pepper stone’ from the black grains
  that occur in it. It was one of the two old traditional building
  stones at Rome before the introduction of travertine from the quarries
  by Tibur, the other being the coarser and commoner tufa of which the
  wall of Servius Tullius was built. The most interesting monument in
  the material is the sarcophagus of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus in
  the Vatican, dating from the third century B.C. A characteristic
  piece, with the black ‘pepper’ marks, is shown as Q on the
  Frontispiece.

Footnote 92:

  Istrian stone is a fine-grained limestone of a warm yellowish grey
  tint; it is capable of taking a polish, and is obtainable in large
  pieces. It is broken at various points of the coast from Merlera near
  Pola to the island of Lesina off the coast by Spalato, and was largely
  used in the buildings of Venice, and generally in north-eastern Italy.
  A considerable amount has been recently employed in the monumental
  buildings of the Ring at Vienna. See L on the Frontispiece.

Footnote 93:

  ‘The Doric edifice of the Panattiera’ sounds a very curious
  description of Sansovino’s famous and magnificent Library of S. Marco,
  the finest late Renaissance building in Italy, but this seems to be
  what Vasari had in his mind. Dr Robertson of Venice has been kind
  enough to explain in a letter the history of the site which he has
  ascertained from the archives. The ground where the Library now stands
  was occupied up to 1537 by a government grain and bread store, the
  ‘Panattiera’ (or more properly ‘Panatteria’). The shops for the sale
  of bread were then removed and grouped round the base of the
  Campanile, where they were replaced a little later by Sansovino’s
  Loggetta. Vasari visited Venice in 1542, and at that time if the shops
  and store had themselves been removed their name would still cling to
  the place and explain his words. We should hardly call the Library a
  ‘Doric edifice,’ as only the lower Order is ‘Doric,’ but we must
  remember that it was only this lower Order that would be completed at
  the date of Vasari’s visit.

Footnote 94:

  The Tuscan Zecca. The original Zecca or mint was at the Rialto, and it
  was afterwards transferred to the Piazzetta, where Sansovino in 1535
  erected for it the present edifice, in the rusticated or Tuscan style.
  The situation of it is between the Library and the quay. The façade
  shows an arcaded lowest story in rusticated masonry, with two stories
  above, one in the Doric the other in the Ionic Order, and the columns
  in both cases are themselves rusticated; that is to say they have
  projecting horizontal courses of stone that appear to mark them with a
  series of bands or bars.

Footnote 95:

  ‘Macigno’ is a green grey sandstone of the lower tertiary formation in
  Italy.

Footnote 96:

  Pietra Serena is a very fine sedimentary sandstone, and Vasari does
  not say too much in its praise. Baldinucci in his _Vocabolario_
  repeats much of what Vasari has said, but mentions also a ‘pietra
  bigia’ or grey stone, which lies outside the ‘serena,’ and is inferior
  to it.

  The quarries of pietra serena are abundant along the southern slopes
  of Monte Ceceri, to the south east of Fiesole, overhanging Majano. The
  blue colour Vasari ascribes to it is the cause of its name, the
  epithet ‘sereno’ being specially applicable to the clear blue sky. See
  G on the Frontispiece. Vasari’s account of the stones dealt with in §§
  16, 17, is not very clear, as he returns to the epithet ‘serena’ at
  the close of § 16 for a stone that he makes to differ essentially from
  the ‘serena’ of the beginning of the section in that it is
  weather-resisting. Cellini in his second Treatise, _Della Scultura_,
  ed. Milanesi, 1893, p. 201, is clearer. He distinguishes three kinds,
  (1) ‘pietra serena,’ azure in hue and only good for work in interiors;
  (2) a stone of a brownish hue (tanè) that he calls ‘pietra morta.’ The
  lexicographers fight shy of this term, but it seems to mean a stone
  without any lime in it and therefore unchangeable by the action of
  fire, while a limestone would be ‘pietra viva.’ See Cellini, loc.
  cit., p. 187. This is suitable for figure carving, and it resists
  ‘wind and rain and all violence of the weather.’ It is evidently the
  stone Vasari writes of as the material of Donatello’s ‘Dovizia.’ (3)
  The third kind is the pietra forte, also brownish in hue, and useful
  for decorative carvings on exteriors. Cellini notes as Vasari does
  that it is only found in small pieces.

Footnote 97:

  Pietra del fossato. Signor Cellerini, of the Opera del Duomo,
  Florence, says that the name ‘pietra del fossataccio’ is still used
  among practical stone workers. It is stone gained by excavation.

Footnote 98:

  The colour of the stone in the Library and New Sacristy of S. Lorenzo
  is a brownish grey rather than ‘bluish.’ It tells as warm in hue
  against the white walls, which are of marble in the Sacristy and in
  the Library of plaster.

Footnote 99:

  Dr A. Gherardi, Director of the State Archives at Florence, has been
  so kind as to make researches in the documents under his charge for
  the purpose of discovering Vasari’s authority for this statement.
  These investigations have so far however proved without result. Among
  the ‘Leggi e Bandi’ of the sixteenth century in Tuscany collected by
  Cantini in the first volume of his _Legislazione Toscana_ there are
  various regulations about trades, prohibitions against cutting timber
  on the hills, measures facilitating the import of building materials
  into certain localities, and the like, which show that an edict such
  as Vasari refers to was quite possible in the early days of the Grand
  Ducal régime. The nearest approach to it that we have been able to
  discover are certain edicts of the end of the sixteenth century,
  published by Mariotti, _La Legislazione delle Belle Arti_, Roma, 1892,
  p. 246 f., that prohibit the exportation from the state of ‘pietre
  mischie dure’ (agates, jaspers, and the like) of which the Grand Duke
  had need for a certain chapel he was building, evidently the ‘Cappella
  dei Principi’ at S. Lorenzo.

Footnote 100:

  This is of course the well known ‘Uffizi,’ erected by Vasari between
  1560 and 1574 for the accommodation of various state departments. The
  expression ‘strada’ or ‘street’ has reference to the scheme of the
  building, which is erected along the two sides and one end of a very
  elongated, and indeed street-like, court, from which the various
  entrances into the building open. In documents relating to its
  construction it is sometimes referred to as ‘Via dei Magistrati.’ A
  little later Vasari gives an interesting note on the scheme of
  construction he employed in the lower order of the edifice. See
  postea, p. 72 f.

Footnote 101:

  The Mercato Vecchio at Florence was an open square that occupied the
  northern portion of the site now covered by the new Piazza Vittorio
  Emmanuele. On the side next the Via Calimara a granite column was
  erected in 1431, and on this column was set up the statue by Donatello
  representing ‘Abundance’ (‘Dovizia’). This stood till October 20,
  1721, when in consequence of damage due to time and exposure it fell
  to the ground and was dashed into pieces. In the following year, 1722,
  Giov. Batt. Foggini carved another figure representing the same
  allegorical personage, and this remained till our own time; and may be
  seen _in situ_ in one of Alinari’s photographs. It is now in the
  museum of S. Marco with other fragments from the demolitions in the
  ‘Centro.’ See Guido Carocci, _Il Mercato Vecchio di Firenze_, Firenze,
  1884.

Footnote 102:

  On ‘Pietra Forte,’ the Official Catalogue of the Italian Section of
  the International Exhibition of 1862 reports, p. 62, as follows. ‘The
  rock called _Pietraforte_ ... is very largely used in Florence; it is
  very durable, as may be seen in the older palaces of the city. In
  composition it is an arenaceous limestone, which is very hard and
  unalterable, as its name implies.’ It has been extensively quarried by
  Fiesole and to the north of Majano, and Monte Ripaldi, above the
  valley of the Ema to the south of Florence, furnishes large supplies
  of it. See M, N, on the Frontispiece.

Footnote 103:

  The blocks used for the façade of the Pitti have been remarked on for
  their great size, one of them, an exceptional one it is true, measures
  28 ft. in length.

Footnote 104:

  On this use of the word ‘Goth’ or ‘Gothic’ in the sense of
  ‘mediaeval,’ see Note on ‘Vasari’s Opinion on Mediaeval Architecture,’
  postea, p. 133 f.

Footnote 105:

  Or San Michele, as every visitor to Florence knows, is the church
  occupying the lower story of a lofty building in the Via Calzaiuoli.
  Constructively speaking the upper part is supported on the ground
  story by piers between which are round headed arches, three on the
  north and south sides and two on the east and west. The heads of these
  are in every case filled with florid late Gothic tracery with
  intersecting arches and rich cusping, and on all sides but the west
  the openings below the heads are walled in. On the west the arches
  contain the doorways of entrance, and the tracery above the doors,
  about which Vasari is writing, is richer than on the other sides of
  the building. It is curious to find Vasari calling this work ‘truly
  admirable,’ whereas a page or two later we shall find him inveighing
  against the ‘Goths’ (the mediaeval builders) and all their works and
  ways.

Footnote 106:

  Coats of arms. These ‘stemmi,’ as they are often called, are very
  familiar objects on the exterior of Tuscan palaces, and the arms of
  the Medici, six round balls or pellets, are constantly in evidence. In
  the view of the Fortress in Fig. 3 a ‘stemma’ of the Medici is to be
  seen displayed on the face of the wall. It is referred to by Vasari,
  _Opere_, ed. Milanesi, IV, 544. Mariotti, _La Legislazione delle Belle
  Arti_, Roma, 1892, p. 245, has printed an interesting edict of the
  year 1571, in Tuscany, designed to protect these memorials of the
  ancient Florentine families. The memory of those who built the houses,
  it says, ‘is preserved and perpetuated by their Arms, Insignia,
  Titles, Inscriptions, which are affixed or painted or carved or
  suspended over the doors, arches, windows, projecting angles or other
  places where they are conspicuously to be seen,’ and the edict,
  re-enacting older regulations, reminds the citizens that no one who
  purchases or becomes possessed of an old house on which there are
  insignia of the kind is allowed to remove or in any way deface them.
  No new owner is to presume to add his own arms or other memorial by
  the side of the old ones of the founder and constructor of the house.
  Only in cases where these are absent may the new owner put up his own
  insignia. This regulation shows a historical sense and a care for the
  tangible memorials of a city’s past which have been too often lacking
  in more modern times. No doubt it is due to its enforcement that so
  many of these ‘stemmi’ are left to add interest to the somewhat
  modernized streets of the Florence of to-day.

Footnote 107:

  ‘In the times of the Goths;’ ‘German work.’ See Note on ‘Vasari’s
  Opinion on Mediaeval Architecture,’ postea, p. 133 f.

Footnote 108:

  It will be seen that in this section Vasari combines two quite
  distinct things, the so-called ‘Tuscan,’ or as he calls it, the
  ‘Rustic’ Order, and rusticated masonry, which has nothing to do with
  the Orders of Architecture, but is a method of treating wall-surfaces.
  On this see the Note on ‘Rusticated Masonry,’ postea, p. 132. The
  reason why the ‘Tuscan’ is called the ‘Rustic’ Order, is that, being
  the simplest and, so to say, rudest of the Orders, it is most suitably
  employed in connection with walling of a rough and bossy appearance.
  The shafts of columns are sometimes rusticated to correspond with the
  walling, as at the Venetian ‘Zecca,’ mentioned ante, p. 56, but the
  expedient is of doubtful advantage, as the clear upright appearance of
  the column is thereby sacrificed.

Footnote 109:

  Vasari says here that the ‘Rustic’ or Tuscan column is six ‘heads’
  high. What does he mean by this? There is evidently in his mind the
  familiar comparison of different columns to human figures of different
  proportions, a conceit found in Vitruvius (IV, i, 6 f.) and in writers
  of the Renaissance (see Alberti, _De Re Aedificatoria_, Lib. IX, c.
  7), and so he measures by ‘heads,’ which would apply to a figure but
  not to a column. ‘Testa,’ ‘head,’ cannot, as the context shows, mean
  the height of the capital of the column. It really means here the
  lower diameter of the column. It is this lower diameter (or sometimes
  half the lower diameter) that is the normal unit of measurement for
  the proportions of a column. Thus the height of the Tuscan column is
  given by Vitruvius and by Palladio and other moderns as six times the
  lower diameter. Though ‘head’ may seem a very curious word with which
  to describe this, there is no doubt that such is the meaning of it.
  Alberti, in his tract on the Orders and their proportions, uses the
  lower diameter as his measure but applies to it this very term
  ‘testa.’ There is a certain letter from Vasari to Duke Cosimo that
  deals with the measurements of a column of granite presented to him by
  the Pope and afterwards conveyed from Rome and set up in the Piazza di
  S. Trinità, where it carries the porphyry statue by Francesco del
  Tadda (postea, p. 111). Vasari gives the diameter of the ‘head’ of
  this column, but notes afterwards that the shaft diminishes from the
  ‘head’ upwards towards the necking (collarino). Hence there is no
  doubt about the interpretation of the word in question. See the letter
  in _Opere_, ed. Milanesi, VIII, 352.

Footnote 110:

  The Citadel of Florence. This is not the ‘Belvedere’ fortress on the
  hill behind the Palazzo Pitti, but the so-called ‘Fortezza da Basso’
  to the north of the town, now used as barracks, which the railway
  skirts just before entering the station near S. Maria Novella. It
  dates from 1534, and was built by Alessandro dei Medici with the
  intention of overawing the citizens. It occupied the site of the
  Faenza gate, and was partly within and partly outside the enceinte of
  the city. The ‘principal façade’ of which Vasari writes, is still well
  preserved in the middle of the southern face, opposite the town, and a
  sketch of it is shown in Fig. 3, but nothing else of interest is said
  to remain from the Renaissance period.

  The masonry of the façade is an excellent example of elaborate
  rustication, and is very carefully executed in pietra forte. The
  illustration, Fig. 4, bears out Vasari’s description, and exhibits in
  alternation round bosses 18 in. in diameter and 4 in. in salience, and
  oblong diamonds about 3 ft. by 1 ft. 6 in. There are worked borders
  about 1 in. in width round all the lines of juncture, and the scheme
  is worth noticing.

Footnote 111:

  Vitruvius in his first book (I, ii, 5) gives directions as to the
  Orders suitable for temples to different deities. Thus Minerva, Mars,
  and Hercules are to have temples in the Doric style, etc.; while in
  the eighteenth century Sir William Chambers, transferring the same
  idea to modern times, says that Doric ‘may be employed in the houses
  of generals, or other martial men, in mausoleums erected to their
  memory, or in triumphal bridges and arches built to celebrate their
  victories.’ The modern architect is disposed to smile at these
  restrictions, but there underlies them a sound appreciation of the
  aesthetic significance of architectural forms.

Footnote 112:

  The building referred to is the well-known Uffizi palace at Florence.
  See ante, p. 59.

Footnote 113:

  The construction described by Vasari is evidently of the kind
  indicated in the accompanying drawing, Fig. 5. The pieces of the
  frieze are joggled one into the other so as to form a flat arch, but
  the construction is kept to the inner part and the face shows vertical
  joints between the pieces. As this passage in Vasari seems to have
  escaped the notice of those interested in Renaissance construction,
  the existence of the device he describes has remained unsuspected and
  nothing is known about it at the Uffizi itself. The fact is that
  Vasari’s system has succeeded in one way too perfectly for his
  purpose. Everything has remained ‘safe and sound,’ and no one of the
  architrave beams shows signs of failure, so that no technical
  examination of the fabric has been called for. On the other hand,
  neither the artificers nor the world at large seem to have benefitted
  by Vasari’s kindness, for the books do not notice his device. There is
  no mention of it even in the huge work on Tuscan Renaissance
  architecture now just completed under the editorship of Baron Henri de
  Geymüller, nor in Raschdorff’s _Palast-Architectur_, nor Durm’s
  _Baukunst der Renaissance_, though references to it may possibly occur
  in older books that have escaped our notice. Joggled lintels forming
  flat arches are of course common enough. The new Parliament Building
  at Stockholm shows them conspicuously with the actual joints appearing
  on the face of the building. Mediaeval and Renaissance fireplaces
  often have lintels of the kind, as in Coningsburgh Castle, Yorks, and
  Linlithgow Palace.

Footnote 114:

  i.e. width on the soffit, or, as it might be expressed, in depth from
  the outer face inwards.

Footnote 115:

  ‘Sopra la colonna.’ This does not mean strictly the piece vertically
  above the column, which is the die (dado quadro) already mentioned. It
  is equivalent to the expression just below ‘sopra le colonne,’ and
  means simply ‘in the upper part.’ The piece referred to is A, A, in
  Fig. 5, the ‘pezzo del mezzo’ of the text as quoted below.

Footnote 116:

  ‘Cosi si faccia sopra la colonna, che il pezzo del mezzo di detto
  fregio stringa di dentro, e sia intaccato a quartabuono infino a
  mezzo; l’altra mezza sia squadrata e diritta e messa a cassetta,
  perchè stringa a uso d’arco mostrando di fuori essere murata diritta.’
  The sense of this sentence seems to be indicated by the drawing Fig.
  5. The centre pieces A, A, will slip down into their places and in a
  fashion key the flat arch. There is the same construction in the
  cornice, see below.

Footnote 117:

  The dimension here implied is not the width on the face from right to
  left, but the soffit-width, or depth from the outer face inwards. The
  dies and the cornice-pieces are of the same soffit-width as the
  architrave, but the frieze pieces are so much narrower as to allow
  space behind them for a flat arch of brick abutting at each end on
  that part of the die that exceeds in soffit-width the frieze. See
  plan, Fig. 5 (4), and section, Fig. 5 (5). The plan is at the level x,
  y.

Footnote 118:

  ‘Sopra il dado del fregio’ see note on ‘Sopra la colonna.’ The middle
  piece which goes ‘a cassetta,’ i.e. spanning a void, is at the centre
  of the intercolumniation, not vertically over the die above the
  column.

Footnote 119:

  Fig. 5 (4) and (5) show the nature of the construction across from the
  façade inwards. The corridor is spanned with a barrel vault that
  conceals the back of the entablature. It starts from the top of the
  architrave.

Footnote 120:

  For this use of iron ties, which Vasari regards here as normal, see
  the illustration on p. 25 of Professor Durm’s _Baukunst der
  Renaissance in Italien_, in the _Handbuch der Architectur_, Stuttgart,
  1903.

Footnote 121:

  The expression is a little awkward, but the meaning evidently is that
  the pedestal is half as high again as it is wide. There is some doubt
  whether the clause ‘then above are placed’ to ‘as Vitruvius directs’
  refers to the pedestal or the column itself. In the case of all the
  other Orders Vasari mentions the upper and lower mouldings of the
  pedestal, and it would be most natural to imagine him doing so here,
  but the ‘torus and two fillets (bastone e due piani) as Vitruvius
  directs’ sounds more like the ‘Attic’ base of the column, and the
  reference to Vitruvius should be conclusive that it is _not_ the
  pedestal of which there is question, for the good reason that
  Vitruvius knows nothing of the pedestal under the single column of any
  of the Orders. Such a feature does occur in classical work, as in the
  temple at Assisi, but it is not a normal classical form, and
  architectural purists in modern times reject it. Vitruvius is however
  again referred to by Vasari in this connection, in § 25, and Giorgio
  may have in his mind the sentence in Vitruvius, III, iv, 5, in which
  there is a reference to the mouldings on the continuous podium that
  serves as the substructure of the Roman temple, and forms one
  difference between it and the Greek temple. The single pedestal was
  often used in Renaissance work, and Vasari regards it as a matter of
  course.

Footnote 122:

  The metopes; these are always set back a little behind the face of the
  triglyphs, which are here termed the projections. The metope offers a
  suitable field for carved ornaments.

Footnote 123:

  Vasari merely has in mind the familiar difference in form between the
  Doric and Ionic flutes, the former being much shallower than the
  latter, and not showing the plain strip or fillet which in the Ionic
  column comes between every two of the flutes.

Footnote 124:

  The reference probably is to the portion of the ancient Basilica
  Aemilia, which in Vasari’s time still stood erect where recent
  excavations have revealed the plan and part of the architectural
  members of this famous structure. We must bear in mind that what
  Vasari and his contemporaries called the ‘Forum Boarium’ was not the
  part between the Capitol and the Palatine, near the ‘Bocca della
  Verità’ which was the ancient Cattle Market and now has resumed its
  antique name, but the Forum proper, which used even in the memory of
  those now living to be called ‘Campo Vaccino.’ It seems to have
  derived the name ‘Forum Boarium’ from this very fragment of the
  Basilica Aemilia which Vasari has in his mind in this passage. The
  fragment was figured by Giuliano da San Gallo in a drawing in the
  Barberini Library, which is reproduced in _Monumenti dell’ Istituto_,
  XII, T. 11, 12, and from this, by the kind permission of the Imperial
  German Archaeological Institute, has been taken Fig. 6. The
  destruction of this most interesting fragment, which stood over
  against the arch of Septimius Severus, is one of the many almost
  inconceivable acts of vandalism of which the men of the later
  Renaissance period were guilty. The richness of which Vasari speaks
  can be seen in the illustration.

Footnote 125:

  Here again Renaissance and modern topographical nomenclature do not
  agree. What Vasari knew as the ‘Tullianum’ was not the familiar
  ‘Carcer Mamertinus’ above the Forum on the way up to S. Maria in
  Araceli, but certain antique structures under the church of S. Nicola
  in Carcere, near the Piazza Montanara. These were the ‘favissae’ or
  cells within the structure of the podium or platform of one of several
  ancient Roman temples on this site, which was formerly the ‘Forum
  Olitorium.’ These substructures are now accessible, and the worthy
  sacristan of the church who shows them is still of opinion that he has
  in charge the prison of the Tullianum. One of the travertine columns
  of one of these temples is to be seen within the church, and this
  though Doric is extremely simple, even rude, in its outline. Dr
  Huelsen has however in a recent paper (_Mitteilungen d. k. deutschen
  Archaeologischen Instituts_, XXI, 169 f.) shown that this column was
  originally finished with stucco, in which somewhat elaborate mouldings
  were worked. It was drawn by several of the Renaissance architects,
  and Peruzzi notes it as being ‘in carcere Tulliano.’ Huelsen has drawn
  out a scheme of the mouldings in profile and this is reproduced by
  permission in Fig. 7. It will be seen that Vasari’s remark about its
  richness in membering is quite justified.

Footnote 126:

  Vasari probably refers to the great Corinthian column which was still
  to be seen in his time in the interior of the Basilica of Constantine
  (formerly called the Temple of Peace). The column was placed early in
  the seventeenth century in the Piazza in front of S. Maria Maggiore,
  where it is still in evidence.

Footnote 127:

  ‘Largo’ is the word in the text, but it must be merely a clerical
  error for ‘alto.’

Footnote 128:

  See Note 14, ante, p. 75.

Footnote 129:

  See Note 86, ante, p. 53.

Footnote 130:

  On Michelangelo’s use of architectural details M. Garnier had some
  rather severe remarks in the _Gazette des Beaux Arts_ for Jan. 1,
  1876. He denied to him an understanding of the grammar of the use of
  such forms. It is generally admitted that for the details of the
  Farnese cornice, the fittings and decoration of the Library of S.
  Lorenzo, and other such works to which his name attaches, he was
  indebted to professional architects, such as Vignola, whom he
  employed. We must never forget however that we owe to Michelangelo the
  dome of St. Peter’s, one of the greatest architectural creations of
  its kind in the world. In mentioning the ‘siti storti’ (sites that
  were irregular or out of the straight), Vasari probably had in view
  the design for laying out the Capitol, which is another of
  Michelangelo’s acknowledged successes. Here the existing Palazzo dei
  Conservatori stood somewhat askew and the site was regularized to
  correspond with the line of its façade. All this about Michelangelo
  was added for the second edition, after Vasari had himself worked at
  his master’s staircase at S. Lorenzo.

Footnote 131:

  See Note on ‘Vasari’s Opinion on Mediaeval Architecture’ at the close
  of the ‘Introduction’ to Architecture, postea, p. 133 f. The phrase
  ‘this manner was the invention of the Goths,’ etc., is historically
  important as the first introduction into literature of the familiar
  architectural term ‘Gothic.’

Footnote 132:

  Vasari makes no provision for binding together the vault in stucco and
  that in brick. Each is apparently independent of the other, though
  they are in contact, and no keys are formed in the upper surface of
  the stucco for the purpose of tieing it to the brickwork above.

Footnote 133:

  This same subject is treated in the sixth chapter of the
  ‘Introduction’ to Sculpture and the thirteenth of that to Painting. In
  connection with it see Note on ‘Stucco Grotesques’ at the close of the
  ‘Introduction’ to Painting, postea, p. 299.

Footnote 134:

  The ‘Tuscan work’ referred to here is the same thing as the ‘lavoro
  chiamato rustico’ of which Vasari writes at the beginning of the third
  chapter (§ 20). The so-called Tuscan Order was the simplest and
  heaviest of all, and so most suited for work that partook of the rough
  and unpolished character of natural rock. For the same reason, as was
  seen above, ante, p. 65, the Tuscan Order lends itself best to
  association with bossy or ‘rusticated’ masonry.

Footnote 135:

  Piè di Lupo. This is clearly a mistake for Piè di Lugo, for at the
  lake of that name above the great Cascade of Terni, there are
  appearances corresponding exactly with what Vasari says. It is
  remarked in Hare’s _Days near Rome_, II, p. 141, that the waters of
  the Vellino, which makes the fall, are ‘so strongly impregnated with
  carbonate of lime, that they constantly tend to form a deposit of
  travertine, and so to block up their own channel.’

Footnote 136:

  The Elsa flows from the Apennines by Colle and Castelfiorentino to
  join the Arno by S. Miniato, halfway between Florence and Pisa. The
  valley was the birthplace of Cennino Cennini, the author of the
  _Trattato_.

Footnote 137:

  Monte Morello, 3065 ft., is the conspicuous height to the north of
  Florence, which serves the populace for a weather-glass.

                          ‘Quando Monte Morello
                          Ha il cappello
                          Prendi l’ombrello.’

Footnote 138:

  A few miles to the north west of Florence.

Footnote 139:

  These fanciful conceits have a significance for the history of
  ornament which they hardly seem to deserve. Artificial grottoes of the
  kind Vasari describes were very popular in the France of the
  eighteenth century, and pleased the taste of the sophisticated society
  of the time with an artificial ‘nature,’ that corresponded to the
  affected pastoral style in literature. From the shell and stalactite
  decoration of these grottoes was evolved the ornamental style
  characteristic of the age of Louis XV, the shell-like forms of which
  betray its origin. The name commonly given to this ornament, that
  consists in little but a graceful play of curved forms, is ‘rococo,’
  and this word is connected with ‘rocaille,’ a regular French term for
  fantastic grotto-work of the kind here under notice.

Footnote 140:

  The well-known ‘Villa Madama.’

Footnote 141:

  One of the best existing examples of these ‘rustic’ grottoes and
  fountains is that constructed by Buontalenti in the Boboli Gardens
  near the eastern entrance. As part of its decoration there are built
  in four marble figures, supposed to have been sketched out by
  Michelangelo for the tomb of Julius. A view of the interior of this
  grotto is given on Plate IV. The statue in the corner is one of the
  four noticed above, while a little above it and to the left is one of
  the grotesque figures incrusted with odds and ends, which Vasari
  praises as so fascinating.

Footnote 142:

  The ultimate derivation of the word ‘mosaic’ is a difficult problem.
  Its immediate parent is the late-Latin ‘musivum’ which is generally
  connected with the Greek μουσεῖον, meaning a ‘place of the Muses.’
  With this significance, the Greek word in its Latinized form ‘museum’
  is suitably applied to collections of works of art and similar objects
  of aesthetic interest and value. A ‘place of the Muses’ may however be
  of a different kind. The Muses, like other nymphs, were worshipped in
  grottoes as guardian genii of fountains, and Pliny, _Hist. Nat._,
  XXXVI, 21, writes of ‘erosa saxa in aedificiis, quae musaea vocant,
  dependentia ad imaginem specus arte reddendam,’ where the suggestion
  is of a rustic grotto like that in the Boboli Gardens. Such grottoes,
  natural or artificial, might fittingly be decked with shells and
  coloured stones and any bright inlay that offered itself. If
  incrustations of the kind we call mosaic were actually met with in
  these haunts of the Muses, the work might readily be called by a name
  suggestive of these same nymphs, and this might be applied later on to
  tesselated work in general. There is however no proof, either in Pliny
  or elsewhere, that what we call mosaic was actually so used, and it
  has been questioned by more than one authority whether there is really
  any connection between the word ‘mosaic,’ in its various forms, and
  the Muses. An oriental derivation has even been suggested for the
  term.

  Dr Albert Ilg, in an exceedingly learned paper on the subject in the
  _Wiener Quellenschriften_, Neue Folge, V, 158 f., offered an entirely
  new explanation of the word ‘mosaic,’ which he maintained had in its
  original sense nothing to do with inlaid work at all, but rather with
  gilding. He connected it with a root ‘mus’ or ‘mos,’ with a sense of
  ‘beating’ or ‘grinding,’ and instanced the mediaeval Latin term
  ‘mosnerium,’ which Ducange notices as equivalent to ‘molendinum,’
  ‘mill.’ ‘Musivum opus’ would refer on this view to the gilding process
  in which the gold is ground to powder or beaten out; and Ilg affirmed
  ‘Musaicum im alten Sinne kann nur eigentlich Vergoldung, nicht das
  moderne Mosaik, bezeichnen.’ If the word at first meant ‘gilded work’
  it would later on be extended to what we know as ‘mosaic,’ because of
  the use in mediaeval mosaics of the familiar gold background. The
  argument of Dr Ilg is not convincing, and the question must be
  considered still open. Theophilus, for example, Lib. II, c. 12, uses
  ‘musivum opus’ for inlaid work in which there is no question of gold.

Footnote 143:

  Possibly what we call ‘mother of pearl.’

Footnote 144:

  See Note on ‘The Sassi, della Valle, and other Collections,’ etc.,
  postea, p. 102 f. The mosaic here noticed is unfortunately lost.
  Lanciani, _The Golden Days of the Renaissance in Rome_, 1906, p. 234,
  states that he has searched for it in vain.

Footnote 145:

  See Note 5, ante, p. 27.

Footnote 146:

  Mosaics made up of small cubes of coloured or gilded glass are
  abundant in early Christian and Byzantine times, but were also used,
  though sparingly, by the Romans from the time of Augustus downwards.
  See Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, XXXVI, 189, who fixes the time of their
  introduction.

Footnote 147:

  Egg-shell mosaic. See Note, postea, p. 136.

Footnote 148:

  See Chapters XV and XVI of the ‘Introduction’ to Painting. The
  pavement of the cathedral of Siena exhibits a large collection of such
  mosaics in black and white executed in different technical processes.

Footnote 149:

  See Note on ‘Ideal Architecture’ at the close of the ‘Introduction’ to
  Architecture, postea, p. 138.

Footnote 150:

  That is, about 4½ inches.

Footnote 151:

  About 15½ inches.

Footnote 152:

  See note on ‘The Nature of Sculpture,’ at the close of the
  ‘Introduction’ to Sculpture, postea, p. 179.

Footnote 153:

  ‘Working from manner.’ Vasari refers here to what artists call
  ‘treatment,’ which is a process of analysis and grouping, applied to
  appearances in nature where the eye sees at first little more than a
  confused medley of similar forms that are perhaps constantly changing.
  Under such an aspect the hair as well as the folds of drapery on the
  human figure presented themselves to the early Greek sculptor, and it
  was a long time before he learned to handle them aright. In the case
  of the hair he had no help in previous work, for in Egyptian statues
  it is often covered, or is replaced by a formal wig, and in Assyrian
  art the hair is very severely though finely conventionalized. It was
  not until the age of Pheidias that the Greeks learned how to suggest
  the soft and ample masses of the hair, and at the same time to
  subdivide these into the distinct curls or tresses, each one ‘solid,’
  as Vasari requires, but individually rendered with the minuter
  markings which suggest the structure and ‘feel’ of the material. The
  Italians started of course with this treatment or ‘manner’ already an
  established tradition founded on antique practice. In the mediaeval
  sculpture of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in France and
  England the hair is often very artistically rendered.

Footnote 154:

  This paragraph opens up a subject of much artistic interest, on which
  see Note on ‘Sculpture Treated for Position,’ at the close of the
  ‘Introduction’ to Sculpture, postea, p. 180 f.

Footnote 155:

  For Vasari, a practical artist, to commit himself to the statement
  that figures are made nine heads high, is somewhat extraordinary, for
  eight heads, the proportion given by Vitruvius (III, 1) is the extreme
  limit for a normal adult, and very few Greek statues, let alone living
  persons, have heads so small. The recently discovered ‘Agias’ by
  Lysippus, at Delphi, is very nearly eight heads high. The ‘Doryphorus’
  at Naples not much more than seven. The ‘Choisseul Gouffier Apollo’
  about seven and a half, etc. Vasari seems to have derived his curious
  mode of reckoning from Filarete, who in Book 1 of his Treatise on
  Architecture measures a man as follows: Head = 1 head, neck = ½,
  breast = 1, body = 2, thighs = 2, legs = 2, foot = ½, total nine
  heads. Alberti, Leonardo, Albrecht Dürer, and indeed almost all the
  older writers on art, discourse on the proportions of the human
  figure.

Footnote 156:

  See Note on ‘Waxen Effigies and Medallions,’ at the close of the
  ‘Introduction’ to Sculpture, postea, p. 188.

Footnote 157:

  One objection to an armature of wood is that the material may swell
  with the damp of the clay and cause fissures. Iron is objectionable
  because the rust discolours the clay. Modern sculptors often use
  gas-piping in the skeletons of their models, as this is flexible and
  will neither rust nor swell.

Footnote 158:

  Baked flour used to be employed by plasterers to keep the plaster they
  were modelling from setting too rapidly. See the Introduction by G. F.
  Robinson to Millar’s _Plastering Plain and Decorative_, London, 1897.
  The former used rye dough with good effect for the above purpose.

Footnote 159:

  The tow or hay tied round the wood affords a good hold for the clay,
  which is apt to slip on anything smooth.

Footnote 160:

  This method of producing drapery is not very artistic.

Footnote 161:

  See Note on ‘Proportionate Enlargement’ at close of the ‘Introduction’
  to Sculpture, postea, p. 190.

Footnote 162:

  See Note on ‘The Use of Full-sized Models’ at the close of the
  ‘Introduction’ to Sculpture, postea, p. 192.

Footnote 163:

  The carvers’ tools described by Vasari are the same that appear to
  have been in use in ancient Greece (see the article by Professor E.
  Gardner already referred to), that are figured in the _Encyclopédie_
  of the eighteenth century, and are now in use. Fig. 2, E to J, ante,
  p. 48, shows a set of them actually employed in a stone carver’s
  workshop at Settignano near Florence.

Footnote 164:

  Actual polish of the surface of a marble figure is to be avoided, as
  the reflections from it where it catches the light destroy the
  delicacy of the effect of light and shade. Greek marbles were not
  polished, save in some cases where the aim seems to have been to
  imitate the appearance of shining bronze, but the Greeks finished
  their marbles more smoothly than the sculptors of to-day, most of whom
  prefer a ‘sensitive’ surface on which the marks of the last delicate
  chiselling can be discerned. Michelangelo’s Dead Christ in the ‘Pietà’
  of St. Peter’s, his most finished piece of marble work, may almost be
  said to show polish, and Renaissance marbles generally are quite as
  smoothly finished as antiques. In the case of coloured marbles, used
  for surface decoration in plain panels, polish is of course necessary
  in order that the colour and veining may appear, but it does not
  follow from this that a self-coloured marble, carved into the
  similitude of a face or figure, should be polished.

Footnote 165:

  English terminology for the different kinds of reliefs, and for
  sculpture generally, is very deficient, and many Italian terms are
  employed. It may be noted that Vasari’s ‘half relief’ (mezzo rilievo)
  is the highest kind he mentions, and would correspond to what is
  called in English ‘high relief.’

Footnote 166:

  See Note on ‘Italian and Greek Reliefs,’ at the close of the
  ‘Introduction’ to Sculpture, postea, p. 196.

Footnote 167:

  Donatello’s flat, or ‘stiacciati’ reliefs are deservedly famous. The
  difficulty here is to convey the impression of solid form of three
  dimensions with the slightest possible actual salience. The treatment
  of the torso of the Christ in the marble ‘Pietà’ of the Victoria and
  Albert Museum is a good example.

Footnote 168:

  The antique vessels of so-called ‘Arezzo’ ware are called Aretine
  vases. Messer Giorgio was in duty bound to take some note of the
  ancient pottery of his native city for it was from this that the
  Vasari derived their family name. According to the family tree given
  in a note to the Life of an ancestor of the historian (_Opere_, ed.
  Milanesi, II, 561), the family came from Cortona, and the first who
  settled in Arezzo was the historian’s great-grandfather, one Lazzaro,
  an artist in ornamental saddlery. He had a son, Giorgio, who practised
  the craft of the potter, and was especially concerned with the old
  Roman Aretine vases the technique of which he tried to reproduce.
  Hence he was called ‘Vasajo,’ ‘the vase maker,’ from which came the
  family appellation Vasari.

  This ancient Aretine ware ‘must be regarded as the Roman pottery par
  excellence’ (Waters, _History of Ancient Pottery_, Lond., 1905, II,
  480). It is practically the same ware that is known by the popular but
  unscientific term ‘Samian,’ and consists in cups and bowls and dishes
  usually of a small size of a fine red clay, ornamented with designs in
  low relief, produced by the aid of stamps or moulds. It is these
  relief ornaments that Vasari had in his mind when he wrote the words
  in the text. Arezzo is noticed by Pliny and other ancient writers as a
  great centre for the fabrication of this sort of ware, and Vasari
  tells us how his grandfather, Giorgio the ‘vasajo,’ discovered near
  the city some kilns of the ancient potters and specimens of their
  work. Very good specimens of Aretine ware are to be seen in the Museum
  at Arezzo, and the fabrique is represented in all important
  collections of ancient pottery.

Footnote 169:

  See Note on ‘The Processes of the Bronze Founder’ at the close of the
  ‘Introduction’ to Sculpture, postea, p. 199, which the reader who is
  unacquainted with the subject, will find it useful to read forthwith.
  The best commentary on Vasari’s and Cellini’s account of bronze
  casting is to be found in the French _Encyclopédie_, where there is a
  description, with numerous illustrations, of the casting in 1699 of
  Girardon’s great equestrian statue of Louis XIV, destined for the
  Place Vendôme. It was claimed at the time to be the largest known
  single casting in the world, and represents in their utmost
  elaboration the various processes described by Vasari. Some of the
  illustrations are here reproduced, and will help to render clearer the
  descriptions in the text.

Footnote 170:

  Plate VII shows a section or two of a piece-mould round a portion of a
  figure. It will be noticed that the pieces are so planned that they
  will all come away easily from the model and not be held by any
  undercut projections. The small pieces are then all enclosed in an
  outer shell divided into two halves, and called in French ‘chape’
  answering to the ‘cappa’ of Vasari’s text. Plate VIII, A, shows the
  model of the Louis XIV statue as piece-moulded.

Footnote 171:

  In the case of a heavy casting such an armature is necessary, and must
  be carefully constructed to give support at all points. The armature
  within the core of the horse of Louis XIV is shown in Plate VIII, D.

Footnote 172:

  Vasari here describes a method of constructing the indispensable shell
  of wax which is to be replaced by the bronze. The hollow piece-mould
  is lined section by section with wax and a core is then formed to fill
  the rest of the interior and touch the inner surface of the wax at
  every point. The plaster mould is then removed and the wax linings of
  each of its sections are applied, each in its proper place, to the
  core, and fixed thereon by skewers. There is then a complete figure in
  wax, but, as this is made up of very many pieces, it has to be gone
  over carefully to smooth over the joins and secure unity of surface.
  Cellini’s plan seems a better one. He lines his hollow mould with a
  sort of paste or dough, and then fills up with the core. The dough is
  then removed and wax is poured in in its place, thus forming a
  continuous skin and securing a more perfect unity in the waxen shell.

Footnote 173:

  On Plate VIII at B we see the core covered with the skin of wax and
  carefully gone over and finished in every part. The system of pipes
  with which it is covered are the ‘vents’ that Vasari notices in § 62,
  and also the channels through which the melted wax is to escape and
  the molten bronze to enter, as noticed in §§ 63, 64.

Footnote 174:

  Vasari actually says that it must be put ‘al fuoco’ ‘to the fire,’ but
  it is clear that he does not mean that heat is at once to be applied
  to it. If this were done the wax would all be melted off the core too
  soon, before it was covered by the outer skin. It is only when the wax
  has been securely enclosed between the core and the outer skin that
  heat is needed to melt it away and leave its place free for the molten
  metal.

Footnote 175:

  Plate VIII, C, shows this outer armature, with the ends of the
  transverse rods holding core and envelope together.

Footnote 176:

  ‘Give passage to the metal.’ Their essential purpose is to allow for
  the escape of air which would be dangerous if driven by the metal into
  a confined space.

Footnote 177:

  It should be understood that, in the process Vasari has in mind, the
  melted metal is introduced at the _bottom_ of the mould so as to rise
  in it and expel before it the air. It is not poured in at the top.
  Hence the metal enters at the same orifice at which the wax flows out.

Footnote 178:

  Plate VIII, D, gives a section through the model in the casting-pit,
  when all is ready for the actual operation of introducing the molten
  metal. The wax has all been run out, and the outline of the figure and
  of the horse is marked by a double line with a narrow space between.
  It is this space that will be filled by the bronze which will be
  introduced through numerous channels so that it may be distributed
  rapidly and evenly over the whole surface it is to cover. When in the
  pit the mould is packed all round with broken bricks or similar
  material, so that ‘the bronze may not strain it,’ nor cause it to
  shift.

Footnote 179:

  The wax has already been carefully weighed, and in order to estimate
  how much bronze will be required for the cast a rough calculation is
  made based on the amount of wax.

Footnote 180:

  The subject of the composition of bronze and of other alloys of copper
  is a complicated one, for the mixtures specified or established by
  analysis are very varied. Normally speaking, bronze is a mixture of
  copper with about ten per cent. of tin, brass of copper with twenty to
  forty per cent. of zinc. Vasari’s proportions for bells and for cannon
  are pretty much what are given now. In the _Manuel de Fondeur_
  (Manuels Roret) Paris, 1879, II, p. 94, eight to fifteen per cent. of
  tin are prescribed for cannon, fifteen to thirty per cent. for bell
  metal, the greater percentage of tin with the copper resulting in a
  less tough but harder and so sharper sounding metal. It will be noted
  however that for statuary metal Vasari specifies a mixture not of
  copper and tin but of copper and brass, that is, copper and zinc.
  Brass is composed of, say, twenty-five per cent. of zinc and
  seventy-five per cent. of copper, so that a mixture of two thirds, or
  sixty-six per cent., of copper with one third, or thirty-three per
  cent., of brass would work out to about ten parts of zinc to ninety of
  copper, and this agrees with classical proportions. The Greeks used
  tin for their bronzes, but various mysterious ingredients were
  supposed to be mingled in to produce special alloys. The Romans used
  zinc, or rather zinciferous ores such as calamine, with or in place of
  tin, and this is the tradition that Vasari follows.

  A recent analysis of the composition of the bronze doors at
  Hildesheim, dating from 1015 A.D., gives about seventy-six parts
  copper, ten lead, eight tin, four zinc; and of the ‘Bernward’ pillar
  ascribed to about the same date, seventy copper, twenty-three tin, and
  five lead. These differences may surprise us, but metal casting in
  those days was a matter of rule of thumb, and we may recall Cellini’s
  account of his cramming all his household vessels of pewter into the
  melting pot to make the metal flow for casting his ‘Perseus.’

Footnote 181:

  Vasari’s account of the making of dies for medals and of the process
  of striking these is clear, and agrees with the more elaborate
  directions contained in the seventh and following chapters of
  Cellini’s _Trattato dell’ Oreficeria_. Cellini however, unlike Vasari,
  was a practical medallist, and he goes more into detail. The process
  employed was not the direct cutting of the matrices or dies with
  chisels, nor, as gems are engraved, by the use of the wheel and emery
  (or diamond) powder, but the stamping into them of the design required
  by main force, by means of specially shaped hard steel punches on
  which different parts of the design had been worked in relief. The
  steel of the matrix or die had of course to be previously softened in
  the fire, or these punches would have made no impression on it. When
  finished it was again hardened by tempering. It may be noticed that
  the dies from which Greek coins were struck were to all appearance
  engraved as gems were engraved by the direct use of cutting tools or
  tools that, like the wheel, wore away the material with the aid of
  sand or emery.

  The two matrices, or dies, for the obverse and reverse of the medal,
  being now prepared, the medal is not immediately struck. In the case
  of the Greek coin a bean-shaped piece, or a disk, of plain metal,
  usually of silver, called a ‘blank’ or ‘flan,’ was placed between the
  two dies and pressed into their hollows by a blow or blows of the
  hammer, so that all that was engraved on them in intaglio came out on
  the silver in relief. Vasari’s process is more elaborate. A sort of
  trial medal is first struck from the matrices in a soft material such
  as lead or wax, and this trial medal is reproduced by the ordinary
  process of casting in the gold or silver or bronze which is to be the
  material of the final medal. This cast medal has of course the general
  form required, but it is not sharp nor has it a fine surface. It is
  therefore placed between the matrices and forcibly compressed so as to
  acquire all the finish of detail and texture desired.

Footnote 182:

  Plaster, or stucco, is sometimes regarded as an inferior material only
  to be used when nothing better can be obtained. It should not however
  be judged from the achievements of the domestic plasterer of to-day,
  who has to trust sometimes to the wall-paper to keep his stuff from