J.ギッブズのオーダーとイタリア・ルネサンスの建築書の比較

抄録

James Gibbs (1682-1754) seems to have referred to some architectural books of the Italian Renaissance in the process of establishing his proportional system of the orders described in his Rules for Drawing the Several Parts of Architecture (London, 1732). Andrea Palladio was quoted twice in his book and he kept in his library the books by Alberti, Cataneo, Palladio, Scamozzi, Serlio and others, which were later bequeathed to the Radcliffe Trustees in 1754. Moreover, Gibbs already said in the "Introduction" of his earlier work, Book of Architecture (London, 1728), "...these Designs should be done in the best Tast (taste) I could form upon the Instructions of the greatest Masters in Italy". It has so far been pointed out that Palladio's influence was evident in the Rules for Drawing and Gibbs's library played an indispensable role in his architectural practice. But the argument for how much Gibbs depended on Italian architectural books including Palladio seems not to have been discussed thoroughly. Taking it into consideration that Gibbs criticized the modular system which was commonly adopted in the late Renaissance, books such as Vignola's regola delli cinque ordini d'architettura (1562. Gibbs did not have the book, but C. A. Daviler's Cours d'architecture qui comprend les orders de Vignola was included in his possession), Palladio's I quatro libli dell'architettura (1570. Gibbs had an edition of 1601 published in Venice and also an English version of 1715) and Scamozzi's I'idea dell'architettura universale (1615) must have been good guides for his studies of the orders. The present author would like to inquire into the comparisons of Gibbs's orders with those of the above-mentioned architectural books of the Italian Renaissance and also with Perrault's Ordonnance des cinq especes de collones selon la methode des anciens (1683. Gibbs kept an English version of 1708), which was regarded as having an effect on the method of propotioning the order in the Rules for Drawing. This present paper consists of the following three sections '. $1 Proportional comparisons between the principal parts, and the essential parts of the order $2 Compositional and proportional analyses of the essential parts $3 Comparisons of the profiles of Palladio, Vignola and Gibbs. The result of the comparison of the heights of the column (Table 1) shows that Gibbs's system completely coincides with that of Vignola's. The progression of the column heights is not necessarily equivalent to that of Palladio's, but the proportion of the entablature to the column corresponds with that of Palladio's and Scamozzi's. In the proportional comparisons of the essential parts of the entablature (Table 2), Gibbs's ratios often accord with Perrault's, Vignola's or both of them. However, Gibbs's manner of proportioning the pedestal is different from that of the Renaissance sources. Furthermore, each author varies in the proportion of the pedestal to the column, and he adopts his own ratio of one essential part to the others (Table 3), except that Perrault and Gibbs fix the ratio between cap, dado and base regardless of orders. The comparative analyses of components of the essential parts of the order shows that Gibbs coincides with the Renaissance authors in allotting the cornice, capital and base of the column (Table 4, Figs. 1-5, 7). It is probable that Palladio and Vignola also would have been much more referred to than the others. But Gibbs does not imitate them directly for he changes the details of the mouldings, for example, the projection of members like corona and the thickness of fillets. Especially the compositional and proportional relationship of the Ionic and Composite architraves and capitals is characteristic. His Ionic architrave has two fascias, whereas all the

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)