New-York tribune., 1905-11-02
q Gothic Specialists Quaint Study
of Renaissance Architecture.

..,crER OF RENAIssANcE ARCHITECT; Esc:!I l
CEAEAA| Nv Charles Herbert Moore. With twelve
H.. in photogravure and lSs lilusfat,9plis i,p
II. text S'0' pp' XIX z@ q ne M'Snii'"''
COMPANY
80, Moore is arprec;ativeiy remembered
thor Of a book on THE Development
as s OF Gothic Architecture" He left In
snoe which was published some years ago.
- -, III ~ s a-f
'aa, ,,-.,rsssion of thorough scholarship and OF
aA I h.,;ef in the value of his subject Schol-
~ MARKS his Character OF Renaissance
afs..r .,r..c,ure" but on this occasion he seems
IAN using IL to prove that his subject
pehl - ~ no value at all. Where a work of the
Hds a usually written to allure the reader,
so' .sen,s 20 have been prepared kind
s-,,nr tn' against the insidious influence OF
:" ,or,, q. art. OF course. Professor Moore Is
i's- ,.bin his rights as critic Since his book
,..,c has shown that ne is no Dresump-
. =" ,syn,au. he is at liberty to explain why
M confidence in the architecture OF the
.,.ssnee But while he offers some plauslble
,orts In support of his rejection Oh pulo-
,,ch generations of equally well equippeu
.,,, have delighted 10 honor the general drit
:. -. s,udy is so crassiy pedantic and unsym-
-.s.,,c that we can only characterize MS pook
80 NJ the uuantest we have ever read 1T 10
=. wore or,aint because of the utterly hunor-
-, Gravity with which the author takes MS own
Conclusions
S,s, hf the indictment which he draws
tvs. the architects of the Renaissance III
-. &c that while they went to the antique lot
.-.,i-.tior. especially TO ancient Rome heS
- What they found to suit themselves ana
=. M, TOO respectful of the artistic integrity
:, tho classic past The art of the Renals-
e,c. Is in fact he says, AN EN- bodlmehI vi
,s,.rareneous ideas and conflicting aims Inc
,o,nt is unimpe chable, and if Professor Moole
has chosen TO apply il in his study OF Italian
buildings with reasonable assiduity no one coulo
-. comnlained Unfortunately, he has al
,oued himself to write with what LOOKS very
~. ,re,udice. What he has to say about the
,s-ts of this or that piece of architecture seems
,srfunctory, if not actually patronizing. beside
what he has to say in the way of fault hndlng
We see him in the minds eye climbing over
great church or palace with measuring instru-
rpsnts and ali manner of formulae He nails with
sub,in,e severity every departure from what he
s nleased TO consider the iinmutable laws OF
architecture and il, the process completely
misses the essential significance of the work
ru5er discussion Thus he says of Brunelles-
ehf's superb dome at Florence, that with all of
fits mechanical and artistic merit the scheme is
fundamentally false in principle, since Ii in
wolves departure from sound methods of dome
construction" He praises Albert for the in
terror Of SAINT Andrea, at Mantua. but he can
not forbear adding that "the incongruity be-
tween the structural and ornamental systems,
the entirely superficial use of the order, and its
1nftnsss as ornament where ii has not structural
meaning are fundamental defects of this as of
most other Renaissance designs" Michael Angelo
receives short sflrift at Professor Moore's hands
for his work in Gaping st. Peters with one OF
the most aerial pieces of architecture in the
world. Although this great dome has been al
most universally lauded,'' he says 1T is entirely
indefensible from the point Of view Of sound
principles of construction
When this implacable purist finds himself in
the presence OF Renaissance building some