LECTURES
ON
THE RISE AND DEVELOPMENT
OF
MEDIÆVAL ARCHITECTURE
[Illustration: Fig. 116.--Western Porch, Ely Cathedral.
_The restoration of the Vescica Piscis is taken from a print in the
British Museum, dated 1730._]
LECTURES
ON THE
RISE AND DEVELOPMENT
OF
Mediæval Architecture
Delivered at the Royal Academy
BY SIR GILBERT SCOTT, R.A.,
F.S.A., LL.D., ETC.
IN TWO VOLUMES--VOL. I.
WITH ILLUSTRATIONS
LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET
1879
_The right of Translation is reserved._
_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, _Edinburgh_.
PREFACE.
Only half of the following Lectures were delivered by me, as the
_Professor of Architecture_, at the Royal Academy. The first seven were
delivered while Professor Cockerell held the Chair; but, owing to his
infirm state of health, I being then an Associate, was, in conjunction
with Mr. Smirke, called in to relieve him of this duty. The eighth and
ninth Lectures were prepared six years later, after Mr. Smirke had
retired, and those which follow, when I had succeeded him in the
Professorship.
The Lectures are naturally somewhat disconnected; and having been
written both at various times and for audiences often changing, may be
found in some instances to repeat the same facts and ideas, for which,
as well as for too great a prolixity of style, I beg to apologise.
They were written with much zeal; and, thanks to my staff, and to my
pupils, my sons, and others, they were magnificently and profusely
illustrated; more so, perhaps, than any such Lectures had ever been
before.
They have lain long in abeyance; but it seemed to me, that “for better
for worse,” and notwithstanding the lapse of time, they ought to be
published, and Mr. Murray has most kindly undertaken to do this for me.
In correcting them for the press, I have made only verbal alterations,
or corrected accidental errors, or omitted a few harsh expressions.
Where I wished to amplify, I have done so by notes. The illustrations
have been mainly drawn by my friend and assistant, Mr. W. S. Weatherley,
chiefly from those exhibited when the Lectures were delivered, with
additions from my more recent sketches, and will be found to contribute
largely to the elucidation of the text.
GEO. GILBERT SCOTT.
LONDON, _February 1878_.
* * * * *
_At the time of the sudden and deplorable death of Sir Gilbert
Scott in March last, more than 200 illustrations had been made and
engraved. The remaining ones are completed in conformity with his
marginal directions._
_Many of these were prepared by me for the Lectures ten years ago,
and all have been compared with Sir Gilbert’s sketches, with the
diagrams in the MSS., and redrawn. The engraving is by “Leitch’s
photographic process.”_
_Some valuable woodcuts, lent by permission of Mr. Fergusson and
Mr. Murray, have also been inserted among the letterpress._
W. SAMᴸ. WEATHERLEY.
20 COCKSPUR STREET,
LONDON, S.W.
CONTENTS.
VOL. I.
LECTURE I.
The Claims of Mediæval Architecture upon our Study.
Introduction--Art follows the course of civilisation--Three _primâ
facie_ claims Gothic Architecture has upon Study--Additional
claim, that it is Christian Architecture--Objections to the
title--Explanations of the term--Byzantine the earliest Christian
style--Summary of the Historical claims of Mediæval Architecture--Its
intrinsic claims--Abstract beauty--Advantages of an arcuated over a
trabeated style--Facility in decorating construction, and in converting
structural features into elements of beauty--Adaptability to varied
climates--Unites all arts in one--Painted glass--Sculpture--Foliated
sculpture--Gothic Architecture suited to the severest and most elegant
styles--Beauty of external outline--Delicacy of mouldings--Religious
solemnity of the interior of its temples--The spirit with which
the study of Mediæval Architecture should be undertaken--How to be
pursued--Practical objects for which it should be followed up Page 1
LECTURE II.
Sketch of the Rise of Mediæval Architecture.
Anomalous state of things in Western Europe after the destruction
of the Roman Empire--Art almost extinct--Saved by the Western
Church and the Eastern Empire--Architectural elements of the new
races--Charlemagne’s attempts to revive art--Primitive art in England
and the north of France--Dawn of better things--Architecture of
the tenth century--Schools of art and science--Bishop Bernward’s
works--Origin of early styles in France and Germany--Early architecture
of Rome--The arcuated and the trabeated systems--Development of
Romanesque--Its leading characteristics--Romanesque and Pointed
architecture not TWO styles, but ONE--Barrel vaults--Groined
vaults--Oblong bays--Main arches of groined vaulting changed from the
semicircle to the pointed arch--Flying buttresses--Groin ribs--The
pointed arch arose from statical not geometrical or æsthetical
motives--Wall ribs remain round long after the wider arches become
pointed--Two modes adopted to avoid the difficulty of oblong groining
over naves--Sexpartite vaulting Page 37
LECTURE III.
The Transition.
Gradual refinement of Romanesque--French architects the earliest to
systematise the pointed arch--The English before the Germans--The
Italians from the Germans--Fully acknowledged in France 1140--Suger’s
work at St. Denis--Carving in French churches--Corinthianesque outline
of capitals--Distinctly Byzantine capitals--A route by which Byzantine
foliage may have reached France--The importation indisputable--Its
effects seen in Early English capitals--West front of Chartres--Fluting
on basement of doorways--Cathedral of Noyon--St. Germain des Pres,
Paris--Cathedral of Sens, prototype of the Choir and Trinity Chapel
at Canterbury--Nôtre Dame, Paris--A new kind of foliage--The capital
“à crochet”--English transition--Incipient specimens--Refined
Norman--Pointed style, with reminiscences of Romanesque--William
of Sens--William the Englishman--Influence of French work--Oakham
Castle--Glastonbury Abbey--Cathedral of St. David’s--Temple Church,
London--Chichester Cathedral--Tynemouth Abbey--Hexham Abbey--Unfoliated
capitals--Round moulded capitals--Characteristics of English and French
transition--The German transition--Practical lessons from studying
these changes--Principles to which the transition was pioneer Page 69
LECTURE IV.
The Thirteenth Century.
Mediæval architecture usually classified under heads of
centuries--Actual points of change do not coincide with these
divisions--Auspices for the development of the Early Pointed
style--Great works in England and France--Artistic disturbance
in Germany--Progress in Italy--Energy pervades every branch of
art--Perfected Early Pointed a natural growth from Romanesque--Leading
characteristics--Columns--Bases of Columns--Capitals--Plan
of the abacus--Circular plan--Whence this arose--Moulded
capitals--Windows--Bases of buildings--Cornices and foliated
bands--Doorways--French and English compared Page 137
LECTURE V.
The Thirteenth Century--_continued_.
St. Saviour’s, Southwark--Choir of Temple Church, London--Chapel
at Lambeth--Westminster Abbey--Its Italian mosaic work, monuments,
and ancient reredos--Chapel of St. Etheldreda, Holborn--St.
Alban’s Abbey--Priory Church, Dunstable--Stone Church near
Gravesend--Waltham Cross--Jesus Chapel, Cambridge--Ely and Peterborough
Cathedrals--Warmington Church--West Walton Abbey--Crowland
Abbey--St. Mary’s and All Saints, Stamford--Ketton, Grantham, and
Frampton Churches--Lincoln Cathedral--Southwell Minster--Newstead
Abbey--York Cathedral--St. Mary’s Abbey, and St. Leonard’s Hospital,
York--Skelton Church--Beverley and Ripon Minsters--Fountains, Rivaulx,
Whitby, Kirkham, and Guisborough Abbeys--Chapel of the Nine Altars,
Durham--Hexham and Dryburgh Abbeys--Chapel of Holyrood--Elgin and
Glasgow Cathedrals--Furness Abbey--Southern examples--Most great
churches in France vaulted, not so in England--Universal excellence
of workmanship from 1175 to 1400--Domestic architecture of France,
Germany, Italy, and England--Influence of thirteenth century work on
our artistic practice Page 170
LECTURE VI.
The Rationale of Gothic Architecture.
Contradictory opinions as to the character and origin of Gothic
Architecture--True causes of its origin--The arch--The Romans
eminently practical--Two defects in their architecture--Practical
improvements--Use of small materials--Arches in rims--Sub-ordinating
rims--Imposts--Pilaster capitals--Decorative columns--Romanesque
arch decorations--Labels--Clustered columns--Weight of arches
on columns--Doorways--Windows--Rejection of ancient rules of
proportion--Efforts to improve construction and decoration in the
twelfth century--Absolute demand for an arch of less pressure and for
an abutment of greater resistance--_Ribbed_ as distinguished from
_arris_ vaulting--Reasons for adopting the former--Pointed arch as
effecting proportion Page 215
LECTURE VII.
The Rationale of Gothic Architecture--_continued_.
The bases of a thirteenth century church indicate the plan and
construction of the vaulting--The system of mouldings--Windows,
their development--Rationale of stained glass--A general principle
of ornamentation common to all good architecture--The roof--Secular
buildings--Cloth market Yprès--Warehouses, Nuremburg--Windows in
secular and ecclesiastical buildings--Trabeated architecture in
its truest forms--Fireplaces--Chimney-shafts--Oriel and Dormer
windows--Ceilings--Subordination of external design to internal
requirements--Designs adapted to the materials most readily
obtained--Conditions demanded of our future architecture--Gothic
architecture well fitted to unite these conditions Page 246
A Digression concerning Windows Page 276
LECTURE VIII.
On the Practical Study of Gothic Architecture.
Evident ignorance or neglect of those who practise Gothic
architecture--Faithfulness of others--The styles should be learned
from ancient buildings--Our knowledge to be continually revived
and added to--Hints to students--The study of Lincoln Cathedral,
Canterbury Cathedral, and examples in London--Libraries and museums
in London--Foreign travel--Examples in Paris, and other parts of
France--Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. etc. Page 290
LECTURE IX.
On the Study and Practice of Gothic Architecture.
Every-day business and practical work to go on _hand in hand_ with
the study of ancient buildings--How best to be accomplished--The
study _from books_--Artistic and archæological portions cannot be
wholly disconnected--Heraldry--A knowledge of the history of art
absolutely necessary for the study of Mediæval architecture--Greek
art the parent of Gothic sculpture--Ruined cities of Central
Syria--Mahometan styles--Our own form of church the direct
inheritance from the earliest Christian temples--Training _as
artists_--Choice among specimens of different Mediæval periods and
styles--Examples especially recommended--Practical studies of ancient
buildings in connection with their _structural_ and _mechanical_
qualities--Vaulting--Timber-work--Stone-work, etc. etc.--The _actual
practice_ of Mediæval architecture--The _repairs_ and _restoration_ of
ancient buildings Page 331
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
CONTAINED IN VOL. I.
FIG.
Ely Cathedral. Western Porch _Frontispiece._
PAGE
1-14. Diagrams explanatory of the various systems of Romanesque
Vaulting 52-63
15. St. Denis. Interior of one of the Apsidal Chapels 78
16. Do. Exterior of do. 79
17. Do. Part of Capital from do. 79
18. Greek. Acanthus, from the Choragic Monument to Lysicrates,
Athens 81
19. Roman Acanthus, from the Temple of Mars Ultor 81
20. St. Denis. Scroll from 82
21. Do. Part of a Cornice 82
22. St. Mark’s, Venice. Capital from the church of 83
23. St. John’s, Constantinople. Do. do. 83
24. St. Frond, Perigueux. Do. do. 83
25. Do. do. Fragment of do. 83
26. Column of Marcion, Constantinople. Capital from 84
27. St. Germain des Pres, Paris. Do. 85
28. Lincoln Cathedral (north-west Portal). Capitals from 85
29-33. Chartres. Enriched shafts from 86
34. Cathedral of Noyon. Interior of one of the Apsidal Chapels 89
35. Do. Exterior of do. 89
36. Do. Plan of do. 89
37. St. Germain des Pres, Paris. Two Bays of Choir 92
38. Do. do. Western Doorway 93
39. Cathedral of Sens. Interior view 94
40. Cathedral of Sens. View of Choir Aisles 96
41-42. Do. Capitals from do. 97
43-46. Nôtre Dame, Paris. Capitals from 98-100
47-48. Do. do. Carving from 101
49. St. Leu, near Creil. Capital from the Apse 101
50. Nôtre Dame, Paris. Capital from the West Front 101
51. St. Eusèbe, Auxerre. Capital from 101
52. Noyon. Capital from the Apse 102
53. Laon. Capital from 102
54. Sens. do. 102
55. Nôtre Dame, Paris. Capital from 102
56. Sainte Chapelle, Paris. do. 103
57. Do. part of Capital from 103
58. St. Remi, Rheims. Capital from 103
59. Fountains Abbey. View across Nave 104
60. Kirkstall Abbey. View of South Transept 105
61. Durham Cathedral. The Galilee 106
62. St. Mary’s Abbey, York. Vestibule of Chapter-house. View
from Cloister 107
63. St. Mary’s Abbey, York. Do. View
from Chapter-house _To face_ 108
64. St. Mary’s Abbey, York. Plan of Vestibule of Chapter-house 108
65. York Cathedral. Archbishop’s Palace, Fragment of 109
66. Ripon Minster. Bay of Choir _To face_ 109
67. Ely Cathedral, South Transept. West end 110
68. St. Cross, near Winchester. Capital from 111
69. Canterbury Cathedral. View of Choir _To face_ 112
70. Do. Do. Trinity Chapel 112
71. Do. Capitals. William of Sens 112
72. Do. Trinity Chapel. Capital. William the
Englishman 113
73. Oakham Castle, Rutlandshire. Capital from 114
74. Chapel of St. Joseph of Arimathea, Glastonbury. Exterior
view 115
75. Chapel of St. Joseph of Arimathea, Glastonbury. Interior
view 116
76. St. David’s Cathedral. Internal bay of Nave _To face_ 117
77-78. Do. Capitals from 118
79. Temple Church, London. View of Circular Aisle 119
80. Chichester Cathedral. Do. Eastern part _To face_ 120
81. Tynemouth Abbey. The Choir “ 120
82. Hexham Abbey. South side of Choir 121
83. Bridlington Priory Church, Yorkshire. Capital from 122
84. Ripon Cathedral. Do. 123
85. Fountains Abbey. Do. 123
86. St. Cross, Hampshire. South Aisle of Choir 124
87. Durham Cathedral. Chapel of the Nine Altars _To face_ 140
88-91. Bases of Columns from Bridlington: St. Mary’s Abbey, York:
St. Stephen’s, Caen: Veselay: and Westminster Abbey 150-151
92-93. Sections of early Bases 152
94. Rollestone, Notts. Capital from 154
95. Chartres. Specimens of carving from 154
96. Southwell Minster. Capital, etc., from 154
97. St. Quentin, Aisne. Capital with angular Abacus 156
98. Canterbury Cathedral. Capital from Crypt 157
99-102. Moulded Capitals from Salisbury, St. Alban’s and Westminster,
with sections 157-158
103-107. Base Moulds of Buildings 164
108. St. Alban’s Cathedral. Ornament in Western Portals 167
109. Do. Western Portals, south entrance _To face_ 167
110. Temple Church, London. View of Choir 173
111. Chapel of St. John Baptist, Westminster Abbey. Conventional
foliage 177
112. Do. do. Natural do. 178
113. Retabulum, or moveable Reredos, formerly belonging to the
High Altar, Westminster Abbey _To face_ 181
114. Iron grille, Queen Eleanor’s Tomb, Westminster Abbey 181
115. Chapel of St. Etheldreda, Ely Place, Holborn. Side Windows 183
116. Ely Cathedral. Western Porch. _Frontispiece._
117. Ely Cathedral. Eastern Front 190
118. Peterborough Cathedral. Circular Window, West Front 192
119. Peterborough Cathedral 193
120. Lincoln Cathedral. Rose-window North Transept 197
121. Do. View from the South-east 199
122. Do. South-east Portal _To face_ 198
123. Palais des Podestats, Orvieto, Italy. Domestic Windows 206
124. Torre di Santa, Ninfa, Palermo. Do. 206
125. Meslay, near Tours. Do. 207
126. Cluny. Houses at. Do. 207
127. Gostar. The Emperor’s House. Do. 207
128-129. Cologne. Houses at Do. 207
130. Gloucester. West Gateway, College Green. Do. 208
131-133. From an old building called Canute’s Castle, Southampton.
Domestic Windows 208
134. Moyse’s Hall, Bury St. Edmunds. Do. 208
135. Oakham Castle, Rutlandshire. Do. 209
136-137. Diagrams of Arches 223
138-140. Diagrams showing development of Piers 224
141-143. Diagrams illustrating the development of the Clustered
Column 226
144. St. Trophimus, Arles. Cloisters, north side 229
145. Bridlington Priory Church. Part of remains of Cloisters 230
146-147. Diagrams showing the effect on proportion by the introduction
of the Pointed Arch into Romanesque work 243
148. Laon Cathedral. Respond in Choir Aisle 248
149-151. Diagrams explaining the system of moulding 248
152. Cloth Market at Yprès _To face_ 262
153. Warehouses at Nuremburg 262
154-156. Diagrams concerning Windows 278
157. St. Pantaleon’s Church, Cologne 278
158. Burgh Church, Norfolk. Chancel, Window from 279
159-164. Diagrams of Rere-arches 280
165. Broughton Church, Oxfordshire. Window from 283
166. Christchurch, Hants. North Transept, do. 283
167. Stone Church, Kent. do. 284
168. Chancel, Brecon Priory 285
169. Winchester Cathedral. De Lucy’s work 286
170. Furness Abbey. Bay of Chapter-house 287
171. Chapel of St. Etheldreda, Holborn. West Window _To face_ 287
172. Do. do. East do. “ 287
173. Salisbury Cathedral. Chapter-house 288
174. Lincoln Cathedral. Easter Sepulchre 305
175. Do. Capitals north side of Choir 306
176-177. Westminster Abbey. Carved Capitals from 311
178-179. Westminster Abbey. Angels, from the Triforium of the
South Transept 312
180. Westminster Abbey. Mosaic from the Tomb of the Children
of Henry III. and Edward I. 313
181. Temple Church, London. Capitals, West Door 314
182. Montmartre. Capitals from 319
183. St. Julien le Pauvre, Paris. Plan of Choir 320
184. Do. View of Choir 321
185. Do. South Aisle of Choir 322
186. Do. Chapel, south side of Choir 323
187-188. Nôtre Dame, Paris. Western Portals. Corbels from 324
189-191. St. Martin aux Champs, Paris. Capitals from 325
192. El Barah, Central Syria. Capital from 336
ERRATA.
Page 81, Fig. 19, _for_ Temple of Mars, Ultor,
_read_ Temple of Mars Ultor.
“ 94, line 26, _for_ Choir at the Trinity Chapel,
_read_ Choir and the Trinity Chapel.
“ 170, Contents, line 6, _for_ Stanford, _read_ Stamford.
“ 175, foot-note, _for_ Beavais, _read_ Beauvais.
MEDIÆVAL ARCHITECTURE.
LECTURE I.
The Claims of Mediæval Architecture upon our Study.
Introduction--Art follows the course of civilisation--Three _primâ
facie_ claims Gothic Architecture has upon Study--Additional claim,
that it is Christian Architecture--Objections to the
title--Explanations of the term--Byzantine the earliest Christian
style--Summary of the Historical claims of Mediæval
Architecture--Its intrinsic claims--Abstract beauty--Advantages of
an arcuated over a trabeated style--Facility in decorating
construction, and in converting structural features into elements
of beauty--Adaptability to varied climates--Unites all arts in
one--Painted glass--Sculpture--Foliated sculpture--Gothic
Architecture suited to the severest and most elegant styles--Beauty
of external outline--Delicacy of mouldings--Religious solemnity of
the interior of its temples--The spirit with which the study of
Mediæval Architecture should be undertaken--How to be
pursued--Practical objects for which it should be followed up.
It is with feelings somewhat closely bordering upon trepidation that,
availing myself of the liberty given by the regulations recently passed
by the Council of the Royal Academy, I venture to address you on a
subject which has never, till now, been more than incidentally touched
upon within these walls; a subject, indeed, dear to my heart, and
entwined among my inmost thoughts and affections, but one which, perhaps
for that very reason, I feel it the more difficult to bring before you
through the medium of a lecture. It may be at first sight imagined that
love, of all the human feelings, is that best calculated to aid in
describing the beauties of its object, and in advocating its claims upon
the admiration; but it is not so. We can hardly state the reasons why we
love our parents or our brothers. We know that it is a feeling which has
grown with our growth, and is a part of our very existence; yet it is
probable that an acquaintance who has never shared in these warmer
sentiments might describe their character and even their virtues more
successfully than ourselves. If we seek to investigate them, we find the
research all too cold and too methodical to accord with the tone of our
feelings; and, like the poet who wished to sing of the Atrides and of
Cadmus, the chords of our hearts respond only of love.
So it is with those who have harboured an early affection for the
architecture of their native land. Strongly as I appreciate the
intrinsic beauty of the monuments of classic antiquity, and the merits
of very many works of the Revival, I should doubt whether it were
possible for any unsophisticated youth, before studying their
architecture as a science, to entertain towards its productions in this
country any feelings bordering upon real affection. He may see in them
much to admire--much to lead him to study the art which has produced
them; and this study will, no doubt, often kindle those warmer feelings
which ripen into love. But this is a very different feeling from that
deep and filial affection which many a youth, untaught in art, but
gifted by nature with a perception of its beauties, has entertained from
his tenderest years towards the old churches of his neighbourhood, and
which has impelled him to walk from village to village, not only under
the balmy influences of summer, but along muddy roads or snowy paths,
and, with glowing heart but shivering hand, to sketch the humble porch,
the unaspiring steeple, and the mutilated though venerable monument,
with feelings of indescribable delight.
It is this instinctive affection which it is so difficult to reason
upon, and to which cold investigation seems so uncongenial; yet most
pleasant it is, in after life, to find ever new proof that our early
feelings have not been misplaced; that those once callous warm up when
they are led to examine; that those who, strange to say, disliked the
architecture of their forefathers, are now forced to admit some of its
beauties; that the style, once despised, has become gradually
appreciated, and its study become the favourite pursuit of
thousands--every county having its society organised to promote it; that
in every country in which it once flourished (Italy herself not
excepted), the same revived feeling towards it has arisen; and, finally,
that this distinguished Academy has stamped it as equally classic with
the architecture of the ancient world, and admitted it to an equal place
in the instructions offered to her students.
Having found it impracticable, from previous engagements, to give, as
had been kindly suggested to me, a short course of lectures during this
season, I propose on the present occasion to limit myself to some
introductory remarks on the study of Mediæval architecture, which I
trust, with the kind permission of the Council, to follow up next year
by one or two further lectures, both upon its original productions, and
upon the bearing of the study of them upon our own practice and the
architecture of the future.
I will commence by considering the different claims which Pointed
architecture has upon our study.
The more carefully we examine into the subject, the stronger and the
more numerous do we find these claims to be. To a casual observer, the
interest we feel in the subject may appear to be the result of local
prejudice or of arbitrary choice, and our Mediæval styles may seem to
have no greater claim upon us than those of a hundred other periods or
countries. The fact, however, is the very reverse--that Pointed
architecture is marked out from others in the most signal and remarkable
manner. I will briefly point out some of the circumstances which thus
especially single it out.
In tracing the history of civilisation, we cannot fail to perceive that,
from the earliest ages to the present, it has followed one not unbroken,
yet connected stream, and though branches have struck off in different
directions, it has ever had one main channel, which at each period
represents the central mass of civilisation; this stream, passing now
through this country and now through that, but its place being nearly
always so marked as to leave no doubt as to where, in each succeeding
age, the main seat of civilisation is to be found. Art has in regular
succession followed in the same course--the main channel of civilisation
and art having been the same, though each possessing its minor branches.
The earliest seats of mental culture were the great valleys of Egypt
and Mesopotamia. There, too, were the cradles of primitive art. The less
enduring materials of the Eastern valley have deprived us of the remains
of its earlier architecture, but the imperishable ruins of Egypt will
tell till earth’s closing day how mighty was her primæval civilisation.
Persia seems to have succeeded to Egypt and Assyria as well in art as in
dominion; but long before her political power had been overthrown, the
stream of mental power had been transferred to Greece, whose arts and
knowledge, partly indigenous and partly derived from Egypt and Assyria,
so infinitely excelled all which had preceded them, that we are apt, and
with reason, to view them as the only genuine art and civilisation of
the ancient world.
Rome, succeeding Greece in external power, borrowed both her arts and
literature, but, throughout her whole career, was as subordinate to her
in these as she was predominant in power; and when that great
catastrophe occurred which crushed to dust the mighty fabric of Roman
domination, it was again in Greece that civilisation and art flowed on,
and it was thence that those friendly streams proceeded which enabled
the Gothic conquerors of Rome to reconstruct what they had destroyed,
and among the _débris_ of ancient art and knowledge to sow the seeds and
to foster the growth of that richer and mightier civilisation which
distinguishes the modern from the ancient world.
In all its earlier stages, the growth of civilisation in the modern, as
in the ancient world, was marked by corresponding changes in its
architecture. Each age had its architectural style distinctly and
strongly marked; a style which, though connecting itself unmistakeably
with the long chain of ancient art that, though rudely broken in the
West, had been continuous in the Eastern empire, was nevertheless so
distinct from any former link in that chain as clearly to mark a new
dynasty in human affairs, and to show that the stream which had passed
successively through Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Greece, and Rome, was now
making wide and deep its channel among those Gothic nations whose
progenitors had been viewed as the enemies of art and knowledge, and
that the seat of art was henceforth to be established among those
vigorous races which had destroyed that of the ancient world.
My object in going over this well-beaten path is to draw your attention
to three very marked _primâ facie_ claims which Gothic architecture has
upon our study. Firstly, that, though we are in the habit of considering
it antiquated, it is in fact the architecture of the modern as
distinguished from the ancient world--that, just as the architecture of
the earlier half of the world’s history culminated in that of Greece,
which must ever be viewed as its most perfect and most glorious
representative, so did the indigenous architecture of the newer world
reach its culminating point in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries
among the nations of Western Europe--the depositaries of a new
civilisation. Secondly, that it is the architecture of the Germanic
nations, through whose land the main stream of civilisation now runs, as
of old it did through Greece, Egypt, and Rome. And, thirdly, that it is
the latest original style of architecture which the civilised world has
produced; that the chain of architectural styles, commencing in Egypt,
and passing on in continuous course through Assyria, Persia, Greece,
Rome, and Byzantium, and thence taken up by the infant nations of modern
Europe, and by them prolonged through successive ages of continuous
progress, terminated in the style which we are treating of, and has
never since produced another link of its own.
As, then, the architecture of Egypt claims our respect as the earliest
link in the history of architecture, so are our own Mediæval styles
especially marked out from all others as being its latest creation. That
continuous stream of indigenous art which from the earliest ages of the
world had unceasingly flowed onwards--now through this country, and now
through that; now smoothly flowing on through a deep and copious
channel, and now choked up with rocks, or spreading itself
sluggishly and unhealthily through marshes and morasses, but ever
progressing--seemed at the end of the period we are speaking of to turn
back upon its course, and, instead of creating as heretofore ever new
beauties of its own, to content itself with reproducing those of bygone
periods: instead of illustrating, as it were, the collateral stream of
civilisation which flowed on so mightily by its side, it accompanied it
by images of that of an older world--of another family of nations--of
another religion; and since then, though civilisation has rolled on in a
continuous course, it has failed to produce any style of architecture of
its own.
Mediæval architecture, then, is distinguished from all other styles as
being the _last_ link of the mighty chain which had stretched unbroken
through nearly 4000 years--the glorious termination of the history of
_original_ and _genuine_ architecture.
The next claim to which I will direct your attention is, that our style
is, _par excellence_, Christian architecture.
This is a claim which it is so much the fashion of the day to dispute,
and even to deride, that it demands somewhat careful investigation. Many
who have no hesitation in using the terms Mahometan, Hindoo, or Buddhist
architecture, and who do not in the least deny the influence of the
various religions of the ancients upon their modes of building, see
nothing but fanaticism in attributing any such influence to
Christianity; or if they do not deny this influence, they view Pointed
architecture as the special property of the Roman Church (though Rome
herself boasts of having scarcely admitted it within her walls), and
find no style to symbolise their Protestantism but that derived from the
heathenism of the ancient world, and whose more recent type is to be
found in the great metropolitan church of modern Rome.
Other more reasoning persons object that, as Christianity, in its purest
ages, adopted a modified form of the ancient Roman style, and bent it to
its uses, the Roman style became by that process a _bona fide_ Christian
architecture; and further argue that Pointed architecture, having
derived some of its forms from the Saracenic, has thereby lost its title
to being considered a purely Christian style.
To meet these objections, it is necessary to explain what we mean by
Christian architecture.
There can be no doubt that nearly all forms of architecture have taken
their rise in the temple, whose form and character have been regulated
by the religion for which it was erected. From the temple it has
diffused itself throughout all classes of buildings, carrying with it,
in a certain degree, the feeling it had already acquired. No one will
deny this of the Egyptian, the Greek, or the Saracenic; and so
inconsistent are people on such questions, that the very persons who
would laugh at the term “Christian architecture” will almost in the same
breath object to the use of our style for secular buildings, on the
ground that it will make them look like churches!
Now, what we claim for Pointed architecture is, not that it is the only
Christian style which has arisen or is likely to arise, but that it has
been more entirely developed under the influence of the Christian
religion, and more thoroughly carries out its tone and sentiment than
any other style. It is not exclusively, but _par eminence_, Christian.
The early Christians naturally adopted the style which was ready made to
their hands. That this style, as they found it, was essentially Pagan,
it would be absurd to deny; but it was the only one they knew; and,
carefully avoiding the types of Pagan temples, they adopted one of its
secular forms, and wholly adapted it to their uses. The buildings thus
produced were unmistakeably Christian, but it would be absurd to say so
of their style. This being nearly identical with that of their Heathen
predecessors, it needed a long course of remoulding before it could
justly be predicated of it that it was a Christian style--a style
generated under the influence of Christian customs, to fulfil Christian
requirements, and to harmonise fully with the sentiments of the
religion of those who made use of it.
The earliest style which may fairly be called Christian was the
Byzantine. In the East no sudden revolution had affected art or
civilisation, but the Greek empire, founded at the moment when
Christianity became the established religion, went on quietly adapting
its arts and institutions to its new religion. Art having already
degenerated under the later Pagan emperors, and difficulties both from
without and from within gradually weakening and undermining the power of
the State, it was natural that the changing style should not have that
full scope which would have been afforded it had the purifying
influences of Christianity acquired full sway during the Augustan age.
Painting, sculpture, and architectural carving had lamentably fallen off
before they were transferred from the Heathen temple to the Christian
church, and even the more mechanical features of Roman architecture had
departed widely from their original purity of form. The task prescribed
to the new religion was not to take the highest form of Pagan art as it
had existed under Pericles or Augustus, and to mould it to its own uses
and its own purer and holier sentiments: what she had to deal with was a
mere wreck of its former self: all its early simplicity destroyed, its
vigour enervated, its magic instinct for beauty gone, its artists fast
falling back into barbarism; and that not the savageness of early but
untutored art, but the effete and nerveless heartlessness of a race
whose glory had departed. It was this lifeless body which Christianity
had to awaken to new energy--this dull and spiritless lump out of which
she had to mould her future arts, and that at a time when the western
half of the empire was about to be crushed to powder by the mighty storm
of Northern barbarism, and the eastern portion itself weakened by
gradual decay and by the incursions of the Goths, Huns, Persians, etc.,
and eventually by the tremendous inundation of the followers of Mahomet.
That such a glorious result as Byzantine architecture should have been
produced out of materials so lifeless, and through the agency of a
decaying nation, speaks volumes for the power of religion over art.
Let us turn, however, to the Western empire. There the case is still
stronger. With the same decayed and lifeless art as their nucleus, the
people of Christian Rome had the additional disadvantage caused by the
removal of the seat of government, and with it of the seat of art, to
Constantinople; nevertheless, their first efforts were so successful,
that though, in the words of Thomas Hope, “The architecture of the
Heathen Romans, in its deterioration, followed so regular a course, that
that which most nearly preceded the conversion of its rulers to
Christianity is also the worst,”--the same author tells us that “the
early Christian buildings, from their simplicity, the distinctness, the
magnificence, the harmony of their component parts, had a grandeur which
we seek in vain in the complicated architecture of modern churches.”
What course art would have taken had the Roman empire continued it is
impossible to judge. It was destined to share the fate of the empire
itself, and to be utterly overwhelmed by that mighty deluge which severs
the ancient from the modern world; so that its Christianisation,
instead of being gradual and progressive, as in the East, became a
complete reconstruction by the successors of those who had destroyed it,
though aided in their work by the friendly hands of those who, in the
Eastern empire, had kept alight the lamp of civilisation.[1] The
architecture of the West, therefore, instead of being a mere translation
of the old style from Pagan to Christian uses and expression, was a new
creation, formed, it is true, out of the ancient _débris_, but
nevertheless originated, carried on, and perfected by Christian nations
and for Christian uses, and may, consequently, be said, even in a
stronger sense than that of Byzantium, to be a distinct Christian style;
and I suppose none would doubt that its culminating point, and that to
which all its progress tended, was the Pointed architecture of the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
An argument against its claim to the title has been founded on the
theory that the Pointed arch, which is, in some respects, the
culminating feature of the style, was not developed spontaneously by
our Christian forefathers, but learned by them from the Saracens. As
well might it be attempted to sever Grecian architecture from the
mythology and traditions of the Greeks, merely because some of its
details may find their prototypes in Egypt or Assyria, or to disconnect
the native architecture of India from their religion, because its first
inspiration seems traceable to the Fire-worshippers of ancient Persia!
Even Saracenic architecture itself was an emanation from that of
Christian Greece; so that _if_ we are indebted to it for the Pointed
arch (a question which I will not now attempt to investigate), she only
paid back to the religion from which she had borrowed. No one, however,
can study the tendencies of the late Romanesque without seeing that the
Pointed arch was becoming every day more necessary to the development of
the germ which the rising style contained. The gradually increasing
predominance of the vertical over the horizontal, the increase in the
height of pillars and jambs demanding a proportionate addition to the
arch; the necessities of groined vaulting over oblong spaces, and a
hundred other evidences, proved the Pointed arch to be the inevitable
result of the already attained developments; and often had it, almost
unconsciously, appeared in intersecting arcades. If its systematic
adoption can with certainty be traced to the suggestive architecture of
the East, surely this does not unchristianise the already Christian
architecture of the soldiers of the Cross, who brought the idea home
among the spoils won from their unbelieving foes! Is it not rather in
the spirit of our religion to receive tribute and homage from all the
nations of the earth? And if it may be said of the Christian Church
that
“Eastern Java there
Kneels with the native of the farthest west;
And Æthiopia spreads abroad the hand,
And worships,”
it is equally reasonable to expect of her material temples that
“The looms of Ormus, and the mines of Ind,
And Saba’s spicy groves, pay tribute there.”
The character of a style of art does not depend upon the mere material
from which it has been fabricated, but upon the sentiments under which
it has been developed. Were not this the case, all styles, excepting,
perhaps, those in China and Central America, with a few others still
more obscure, would be more or less connected with the religion of Egypt
or of Nineveh; whereas, in fact, every race up to the sixteenth century,
had so moulded the original materials upon which its arts had been
founded as to render them expressive, in a great degree, of their own
sentiments, and especially of their own religion; and more strongly than
in any other case was it so with our own forefathers, when developing
the latest of all styles of genuine architecture, and moulding it to
harmonise with the sentiment of our holy religion.
The last of the historical claims of Pointed architecture to which I
will call your attention is, that it is the native architecture of our
own country, and that of our own forefathers. Here, again, I must define
my meaning for the sake of meeting a class of objectors who delight to
attach a false and exaggerated meaning to an expression.
I do not, then, mean that Pointed architecture belongs to us in any
different sense from that in which it belongs to France or Germany: I do
not mean to revive the claims of our country to its origination, nor to
assert in its behalf any pre-eminent share in its development. All I
mean to urge is the simple fact that, by whatever members of our family
of nations it was shared, it was, nevertheless, the architecture of our
own country--just as much English as we are ourselves--as indigenous to
our country as are our wild flowers, our family names, our customs, or
our political constitution.
In England, as in France and Germany, the same Romanesque architecture
had (with local varieties) grown up with the new civilisation; as it
perfected itself it showed in each the same tendencies and the same
yearnings, which Pointed architecture could alone satisfy. If it were so
that these were at length met by suggestions from the East, it was our
forefathers who fought there side by side with those of our neighbours,
and the lessons learned and the trophies won were common property. It is
possible that France was more rapid in making use of them, and it is
certain that Germany was the most tardy in doing so; but in each the
result had long been aimed at; in each it was the natural consequence of
what had already been attained; and was therefore not the property of
one, but the common inheritance of all; and each having attained it,
carried it on and developed it in her own way, thus making it in every
sense her own.
I am, however, only urging this as a claim which our old architecture
has upon our own study. If we investigate the architecture of Egypt, of
Assyria, or of Persia, we find that it tells of races with whom we have
no national or personal sympathy. If we go to the classic shores of
Greece, though there we should be viewing the work of a race whose arts
and literature are, more than those of any other people, the property of
the world, we nevertheless fail to find anything to connect them in any
special sense with ourselves. If we transfer our researches from Greece
to Rome--though we now view the vestiges of that mighty empire whose
world-wide sway stretched its iron sceptre over our own land, and though
we find among them the germ of the arcuated architecture which forms the
nucleus of our own styles--they are still severed from us by so wide a
gulf that, were it not for the modern revival of their style, they would
appear perfectly alien to our race and climate. All these studies must
be followed up in distant lands, excepting only those few fragments of
Roman work scattered here and there in our own and neighbouring
countries--the evidences of universal empire, the footsteps and symbols
of ancient servitude. How different is the study of Gothic architecture!
Its original exemplars are at our own doors; the very churches, perhaps,
in which from our infancy we have worshipped; the monuments of our own
forefathers; the works of men bearing our own names, whose armorial
badges we are still proud to use; who spoke, in its pristine form, our
own language; who sat in our own Parliaments, were lords of
still-existing manors, founders of still-surviving charities, men who
fought the battles of which we are still proud, and laid the foundations
of our liberties and of all those institutions which render the name of
England illustrious among the nations of the earth. Surely the
architecture which grew up among men so nearly allied to us has a
pre-eminent claim upon our attention!
I have thus traced out what appear to me to be the leading historical
claims of the style we are treating of, and which I will recapitulate as
being--
1stly. That it is the architecture of the modern, as distinguished
from the ancient world.
2dly. That it is the architecture of the nations wholly or
partially of Germanic origin, in whose hands the civilisation of
the modern world has been vested.
3dly. That it is the latest link in the chain of genuine and
original styles of architecture, a chain commencing with the first
settlement of the human race, and terminating in Gothic
architecture.
4thly. That it is, in a stronger sense than can be predicated of
any other style, Christian architecture.
5thly, and lastly. That it is pre-eminently the architecture of our
own forefathers and of our own land.
I will now proceed to direct your attention to some of the more
prominent among its _intrinsic_ claims.
Commencing, then, with its abstract beauty, I will not treat this as a
comparative, but as a positive, quality. Differences of taste and
education lead us to form varied estimates of the relative merits of the
several styles of art, but the most devoted follower of classic
antiquity could scarcely question the absolute and intrinsic beauty of a
Gothic cathedral. Every style of architecture has had its own glories.
The mighty Hall at Karnac; the Hall of Xerxes at Persepolis; that model
of symmetry, the Parthenon; the Coliseum at Rome; and that gorgeous
congeries of domes which canopied the shrine of Holy Wisdom at
Constantinople, all rank among the most noble of the works of man; but
who is there so prejudiced as to deny the worthiness of those glorious
temples which preside in august serenity over the cities of Northern
Europe to an equal place in our admiration? Surely, if abstract beauty
and intrinsic grandeur alone are considered, the cathedrals of Amiens,
of Rheims, of Chartres, of Bourges, of Strasburg, of Cologne, of
Lincoln, Salisbury, or York, with a hundred others, will not suffer by
comparison with the works of any previous age? Nay, I am convinced that
an unprejudiced umpire would go much further, and pronounce them in most
respects far superior to the works of earlier ages; but my argument only
requires that they should be admitted as their equals.
The next claim I will state is this--that as trabeated architecture was
brought to its highest perfection by the Greeks, so the other great type
of construction, arcuated architecture, was perfected by the Mediæval
builders; the round-arch variety in the twelfth, and the pointed-arch in
the two succeeding centuries. No one who gives the subject a moment’s
consideration will doubt the enormous advantages of the arcuated over
the trabeated system: indeed, with the materials we have at command in
this country, the former style in its purity is in most cases
impracticable, as is shown by half our modern attempts at it being in
reality arcuation plastered over to look like trabeation.
The peculiar advantages of the pointed arch (though I do not urge them
to the exclusion of other forms) are its greater power of carrying
weight; its lessened thrust; the facility with which it proportions its
height to that of its supporting jambs, and the general feeling of the
building in which it is used, whether more or less vertical in its
tendency; and its great advantages in groined vaulting.