TheProjectGutenbergEBookofLecturesontheriseanddevelopmentof

mediaevalarchitecture;vol.1,byGilbertScott

ThiseBookisfortheuseofanyoneanywhereatnocostandwith

almostnorestrictionswhatsoever.Youmaycopyit,giveitawayor

re-useitunderthetermsoftheProjectGutenbergLicenseincluded

withthiseBookoronlineatwww.gutenberg.org/license

Title:Lecturesontheriseanddevelopmentofmediaevalarchitecture;vol.1

Author:GilbertScott

ReleaseDate:January31,2020[EBook#61255]

Language:English

***STARTOFTHISPROJECTGUTENBERGEBOOKLECTURES***

ProducedbyChuckGreifandtheOnlineDistributed

ProofreadingTeamathttp://www.pgdp.net(Thisfilewas

producedfromimagesavailableatTheInternetArchive)

Contents.ListofIllustrations

(etexttranscriber'snote)

L E C TUR E S

ON

THERISEANDDEVELOPMENT

OF

MED IÆVA L A R CH I T E C TUR E

[Imageunavailable]Fig.116.—WesternPorch,ElyCathedral.

TherestorationoftheVescicaPiscisistakenfromaprintintheBritishMuseum,dated1730.

L E C TUR E S

ONTHE

RISEANDDEVELOPMENT

OF

MediævalArchitectureDeliveredattheRoyalAcademy

BYSIRGILBERTSCOTT,R.A.,F.S.A.,LL.D.,ETC.

INTWOVOLUMES—VOL.I.

WITHILLUSTRATIONS

LONDONJOHNMURRAY,ALBEMARLESTREET

1879

TherightofTranslationisreserved.

PrintedbyR.&R.CLARK,Edinburgh.

PREFACE.

ONLYhalfof the followingLecturesweredeliveredbyme,as theProfessor ofArchitecture, at the Royal Academy. The first seven were delivered whileProfessor Cockerell held theChair; but, owing to his infirm state of health, Ibeing then an Associate, was, in conjunction with Mr. Smirke, called in torelievehimofthisduty.TheeighthandninthLectureswerepreparedsixyearslater, after Mr. Smirke had retired, and those which follow, when I hadsucceededhimintheProfessorship.

TheLecturesarenaturallysomewhatdisconnected;andhavingbeenwrittenbothatvarious timesandforaudiencesoftenchanging,maybefoundinsomeinstancestorepeatthesamefactsandideas,forwhich,aswellasfortoogreataprolixityofstyle,Ibegtoapologise.

Theywerewrittenwithmuchzeal;and,thankstomystaff,andtomypupils,mysons,andothers,theyweremagnificentlyandprofuselyillustrated;moreso,perhaps,thananysuchLectureshadeverbeenbefore.

They have lain long in abeyance; but it seemed tome, that “for better forworse,”andnotwithstandingthelapseoftime,theyoughttobepublished,andMr.Murrayhasmostkindlyundertakentodothisforme.

In correcting them for the press, I have made only verbal alterations, orcorrectedaccidentalerrors,oromittedafewharshexpressions.WhereIwishedtoamplify,Ihavedonesobynotes.Theillustrationshavebeenmainlydrawnbymyfriendandassistant,Mr.W.S.Weatherley,chieflyfromthoseexhibitedwhentheLecturesweredelivered,withadditionsfrommymorerecentsketches,andwillbefoundtocontributelargelytotheelucidationofthetext.

GEO.GILBERTSCOTT.LONDON,February1878.

At the time of the sudden and deplorable death of Sir Gilbert Scott in March last, more than 200illustrations had been made and engraved. The remaining ones are completed in conformity with hismarginaldirections.

ManyofthesewerepreparedbymefortheLecturestenyearsago,andallhavebeencomparedwithSirGilbert’ssketches,withthediagramsintheMSS.,andredrawn.Theengravingisby“Leitch’sphotographicprocess.”

Somevaluablewoodcuts,lentbypermissionofMr.FergussonandMr.Murray,havealsobeeninserted

amongtheletterpress.

W.SAMᴸ.WEATHERLEY.20COCKSPURSTREET,LONDON,S.W.

CONTENTS.

VOL.I.

LECTUREI.

TheClaimsofMediævalArchitectureuponourStudy

Introduction—Artfollowsthecourseofcivilisation—ThreeprimâfacieclaimsGothicArchitecturehasuponStudy—Additionalclaim,thatitisChristianArchitecture—Objectionstothetitle—Explanationsoftheterm—ByzantinetheearliestChristianstyle—SummaryoftheHistoricalclaimsofMediævalArchitecture—Itsintrinsicclaims—Abstractbeauty—Advantagesofanarcuatedoveratrabeatedstyle—Facilityindecoratingconstruction,andinconvertingstructuralfeaturesintoelementsofbeauty—Adaptabilitytovariedclimates—Unitesallartsinone—Paintedglass—Sculpture—Foliatedsculpture—GothicArchitecturesuitedtotheseverestandmostelegantstyles—Beautyofexternaloutline—Delicacyofmouldings—Religioussolemnityoftheinteriorofitstemples—ThespiritwithwhichthestudyofMediævalArchitectureshouldbeundertaken—Howtobepursued—Practicalobjectsforwhichitshouldbefollowedup

Page1

LECTUREII.

SketchoftheRiseofMediævalArchitecture

AnomalousstateofthingsinWesternEuropeafterthedestructionoftheRomanEmpire—Artalmostextinct—SavedbytheWesternChurchandtheEasternEmpire—Architecturalelementsofthenewraces—Charlemagne’sattemptstoreviveart—PrimitiveartinEnglandandthenorthofFrance—Dawnofbetterthings—Architectureofthetenthcentury—Schoolsofartandscience—BishopBernward’sworks—OriginofearlystylesinFranceand

Germany—EarlyarchitectureofRome—Thearcuatedandthetrabeatedsystems—DevelopmentofRomanesque—Itsleadingcharacteristics—RomanesqueandPointedarchitecturenotTWOstyles,butONE—Barrelvaults—Groinedvaults—Oblongbays—Mainarchesofgroinedvaultingchangedfromthesemicircletothepointedarch—Flyingbuttresses—Groinribs—Thepointedarcharosefromstaticalnotgeometricaloræstheticalmotives—Wallribsremainroundlongafterthewiderarchesbecomepointed—Twomodesadoptedtoavoidthedifficultyofoblonggroiningovernaves—Sexpartitevaulting

Page37

LECTUREIII.

TheTransition

GradualrefinementofRomanesque—Frencharchitectstheearliesttosystematisethepointedarch—TheEnglishbeforetheGermans—TheItaliansfromtheGermans—FullyacknowledgedinFrance1140—Suger’sworkatSt.Denis—CarvinginFrenchchurches—Corinthianesqueoutlineofcapitals—DistinctlyByzantinecapitals—AroutebywhichByzantinefoliagemayhavereachedFrance—Theimportationindisputable—ItseffectsseeninEarlyEnglishcapitals—WestfrontofChartres—Flutingonbasementofdoorways—CathedralofNoyon—St.GermaindesPres,Paris—CathedralofSens,prototypeoftheChoirandTrinityChapelatCanterbury—NôtreDame,Paris—Anewkindoffoliage—Thecapital“àcrochet”—Englishtransition—Incipientspecimens—RefinedNorman—Pointedstyle,withreminiscencesofRomanesque—WilliamofSens—WilliamtheEnglishman—InfluenceofFrenchwork—OakhamCastle—GlastonburyAbbey—CathedralofSt.David’s—TempleChurch,London—ChichesterCathedral—TynemouthAbbey—HexhamAbbey—Unfoliatedcapitals—Roundmouldedcapitals—CharacteristicsofEnglishandFrenchtransition—TheGermantransition—Practicallessonsfromstudyingthesechanges—Principlestowhichthetransitionwaspioneer

Page69

LECTUREIV.

TheThirteenthCentury

Mediævalarchitectureusuallyclassifiedunderheadsofcenturies—Actualpointsofchangedonotcoincidewiththesedivisions—AuspicesforthedevelopmentoftheEarlyPointedstyle—GreatworksinEnglandandFrance—ArtisticdisturbanceinGermany—ProgressinItaly—Energypervadeseverybranchofart—PerfectedEarlyPointedanaturalgrowthfromRomanesque—Leadingcharacteristics—Columns—BasesofColumns—Capitals—Planoftheabacus—Circularplan—Whencethisarose—Mouldedcapitals—Windows—Basesofbuildings—Cornicesandfoliatedbands—Doorways—FrenchandEnglishcompared

Page137

LECTUREV.

TheThirteenthCentury—continued

St.Saviour’s,Southwark—ChoirofTempleChurch,London—ChapelatLambeth—WestminsterAbbey—ItsItalianmosaicwork,monuments,andancientreredos—ChapelofSt.Etheldreda,Holborn—St.Alban’sAbbey—PrioryChurch,Dunstable—StoneChurchnearGravesend—WalthamCross—JesusChapel,Cambridge—ElyandPeterboroughCathedrals—WarmingtonChurch—WestWaltonAbbey—CrowlandAbbey—St.Mary’sandAllSaints,Stamford—Ketton,Grantham,andFramptonChurches—LincolnCathedral—SouthwellMinster—NewsteadAbbey—YorkCathedral—St.Mary’sAbbey,andSt.Leonard’sHospital,York—SkeltonChurch—BeverleyandRiponMinsters—Fountains,Rivaulx,Whitby,Kirkham,andGuisboroughAbbeys—ChapeloftheNineAltars,Durham—HexhamandDryburghAbbeys—ChapelofHolyrood—ElginandGlasgowCathedrals—FurnessAbbey—Southernexamples—MostgreatchurchesinFrancevaulted,notsoinEngland—Universalexcellenceofworkmanshipfrom1175to1400—DomesticarchitectureofFrance,Germany,Italy,andEngland—Influenceofthirteenthcenturyworkonourartisticpractice

Page170

LECTUREVI.

TheRationaleofGothicArchitecture

ContradictoryopinionsastothecharacterandoriginofGothicArchitecture—Truecausesofitsorigin—Thearch—TheRomanseminentlypractical—Twodefectsintheirarchitecture—Practicalimprovements—Useofsmallmaterials—Archesinrims—Sub-ordinatingrims—Imposts—Pilastercapitals—Decorativecolumns—Romanesquearchdecorations—Labels—Clusteredcolumns—Weightofarchesoncolumns—Doorways—Windows—Rejectionofancientrulesofproportion—Effortstoimproveconstructionanddecorationinthetwelfthcentury—Absolutedemandforanarchoflesspressureandforanabutmentofgreaterresistance—Ribbedasdistinguishedfromarrisvaulting—Reasonsforadoptingtheformer—Pointedarchaseffectingproportion

Page215

LECTUREVII.

TheRationaleofGothicArchitecture—continued

Thebasesofathirteenthcenturychurchindicatetheplanandconstructionofthevaulting—Thesystemofmouldings—Windows,theirdevelopment—Rationaleofstainedglass—Ageneralprincipleofornamentationcommontoallgoodarchitecture—Theroof—Secularbuildings—ClothmarketYprès—Warehouses,Nuremburg—Windowsinsecularandecclesiasticalbuildings—Trabeatedarchitectureinitstruestforms—Fireplaces—Chimney-shafts—OrielandDormerwindows—Ceilings—Subordinationofexternaldesigntointernalrequirements—Designsadaptedtothematerialsmostreadilyobtained—Conditionsdemandedofourfuturearchitecture—Gothicarchitecturewellfittedtounitetheseconditions

Page246

ADigressionconcerningWindows Page276

LECTUREVIII.

OnthePracticalStudyofGothicArchitecture

EvidentignoranceorneglectofthosewhopractiseGothicarchitecture—Faithfulnessofothers—Thestylesshouldbelearnedfromancientbuildings—Ourknowledgetobecontinuallyrevivedandaddedto—Hintstostudents—ThestudyofLincolnCathedral,CanterburyCathedral,andexamplesinLondon—LibrariesandmuseumsinLondon—Foreigntravel—ExamplesinParis,andotherpartsofFrance—Germany,Italy,Spain,etc.etc.

Page290

LECTUREIX.

OntheStudyandPracticeofGothicArchitecture

Every-daybusinessandpracticalworktogoonhandinhandwiththestudyofancientbuildings—Howbesttobeaccomplished—Thestudyfrombooks—Artisticandarchæologicalportionscannotbewhollydisconnected—Heraldry—AknowledgeofthehistoryofartabsolutelynecessaryforthestudyofMediævalarchitecture—GreekarttheparentofGothicsculpture—RuinedcitiesofCentralSyria—Mahometanstyles—OurownformofchurchthedirectinheritancefromtheearliestChristiantemples—Trainingasartists—ChoiceamongspecimensofdifferentMediævalperiodsandstyles—Examplesespeciallyrecommended—Practicalstudiesofancientbuildingsinconnectionwiththeirstructuralandmechanicalqualities—Vaulting—Timber-work—Stone-work,etc.etc.—TheactualpracticeofMediævalarchitecture—Therepairsandrestorationofancientbuildings

Page331

LISTOFILLUSTRATIONS

CONTAINEDINVOL.I.

FIG.

ElyCathedral.WesternPorch Frontispiece. PAGE

1-14.DiagramsexplanatoryofthevarioussystemsofRomanesqueVaulting 52-63

15.St.Denis.InteriorofoneoftheApsidalChapels 7816. Do. Exteriorof do. 7917. Do. PartofCapitalfrom do. 7918.Greek.Acanthus,fromtheChoragicMonumenttoLysicrates,Athens 81

19.RomanAcanthus,fromtheTempleofMarsUltor 8120.St.Denis.Scrollfrom 8221. Do. PartofaCornice 8222.St.Mark’s,Venice.Capitalfromthechurchof 8323.St.John’s,Constantinople. Do. do. 8324.St.Frond,Perigueux. Do. do. 8325. Do. do. Fragmentof do. 8326.ColumnofMarcion,Constantinople.Capitalfrom 8427.St.GermaindesPres,Paris. Do. 8528.LincolnCathedral(north-westPortal).Capitalsfrom 8529-33.Chartres.Enrichedshaftsfrom 8634.CathedralofNoyon.InteriorofoneoftheApsidalChapels 8935. Do. Exteriorof do. 8936. Do. Planof do. 8937.St.GermaindesPres,Paris.TwoBaysofChoir 9238. Do. do. WesternDoorway 9339.CathedralofSens.Interiorview 9440.CathedralofSens.ViewofChoirAisles 9641-42. Do. Capitalsfrom do. 97

43-46.NôtreDame,Paris.Capitalsfrom 98-10047-48. Do. do. Carvingfrom 10149.St.Leu,nearCreil.CapitalfromtheApse 10150.NôtreDame,Paris.CapitalfromtheWestFront 10151.St.Eusèbe,Auxerre.Capitalfrom 10152.Noyon.CapitalfromtheApse 10253.Laon.Capitalfrom 10254.Sens. do. 10255.NôtreDame,Paris.Capitalfrom 10256.SainteChapelle,Paris. do. 10357. Do. partofCapitalfrom 10358.St.Remi,Rheims.Capitalfrom 10359.FountainsAbbey.ViewacrossNave 10460.KirkstallAbbey.ViewofSouthTransept 10561.DurhamCathedral.TheGalilee 10662.St.Mary’sAbbey,York.VestibuleofChapter-house.ViewfromCloister 107

63.St.Mary’sAbbey,York. Do. ViewfromChapter-house Toface10864.St.Mary’sAbbey,York.PlanofVestibuleofChapter-house 10865.YorkCathedral.Archbishop’sPalace,Fragmentof 10966.RiponMinster.BayofChoir Toface10967.ElyCathedral,SouthTransept.Westend 11068.St.Cross,nearWinchester.Capitalfrom 11169.CanterburyCathedral.ViewofChoir Toface11270. Do. Do. TrinityChapel 11271. Do. Capitals.WilliamofSens 11272. Do. TrinityChapel.Capital.WilliamtheEnglishman 11373.OakhamCastle,Rutlandshire.Capitalfrom 11474.ChapelofSt.JosephofArimathea,Glastonbury.Exteriorview 11575.ChapelofSt.JosephofArimathea,Glastonbury.Interiorview 11676.St.David’sCathedral.InternalbayofNave Toface11777-78. Do. Capitalsfrom 11879.TempleChurch,London.ViewofCircularAisle 119

80.ChichesterCathedral. Do. Easternpart Toface12081.TynemouthAbbey.TheChoir Toface12082.HexhamAbbey.SouthsideofChoir 12183.BridlingtonPrioryChurch,Yorkshire.Capitalfrom 12284.RiponCathedral. Do. 12385.FountainsAbbey. Do. 12386.St.Cross,Hampshire.SouthAisleofChoir 12487.DurhamCathedral.ChapeloftheNineAltars Toface14088-91.BasesofColumnsfromBridlington:St.Mary’sAbbey,York:St.Stephen’s,Caen:Veselay:andWestminsterAbbey 150-151

92-93.SectionsofearlyBases 15294.Rollestone,Notts.Capitalfrom 15495.Chartres.Specimensofcarvingfrom 15496.SouthwellMinster.Capital,etc.,from 15497.St.Quentin,Aisne.CapitalwithangularAbacus 15698.CanterburyCathedral.CapitalfromCrypt 15799-102.MouldedCapitalsfromSalisbury,St.Alban’sandWestminster,withsections 157-158

103-107.BaseMouldsofBuildings 164108.St.Alban’sCathedral.OrnamentinWesternPortals 167109. Do. WesternPortals,southentrance Toface167110.TempleChurch,London.ViewofChoir 173111.ChapelofSt.JohnBaptist,WestminsterAbbey.Conventionalfoliage 177

112. Do. do. Natural do. 178113.Retabulum,ormoveableReredos,formerlybelongingtotheHighAltar,WestminsterAbbey Toface181

114.Irongrille,QueenEleanor’sTomb,WestminsterAbbey 181115.ChapelofSt.Etheldreda,ElyPlace,Holborn.SideWindows 183116.ElyCathedral.WesternPorch. Frontispiece.117.ElyCathedral.EasternFront 190118.PeterboroughCathedral.CircularWindow,WestFront 192119.PeterboroughCathedral 193120.LincolnCathedral.Rose-windowNorthTransept 197

121. Do. ViewfromtheSouth-east 199122. Do. South-eastPortal Toface198123.PalaisdesPodestats,Orvieto,Italy.DomesticWindows 206124.TorrediSanta,Ninfa,Palermo. Do. 206125.Meslay,nearTours. Do. 207126.Cluny.Housesat. Do. 207127.Gostar.TheEmperor’sHouse. Do. 207128-129.Cologne.Housesat Do. 207130.Gloucester.WestGateway,CollegeGreen. Do. 208131-133.FromanoldbuildingcalledCanute’sCastle,Southampton.DomesticWindows 208

134.Moyse’sHall,BurySt.Edmunds. Do. 208135.OakhamCastle,Rutlandshire. Do. 209136-137.DiagramsofArches 223138-140.DiagramsshowingdevelopmentofPiers 224141-143.DiagramsillustratingthedevelopmentoftheClusteredColumn 226

144.St.Trophimus,Arles.Cloisters,northside 229145.BridlingtonPrioryChurch.PartofremainsofCloisters 230146-147.DiagramsshowingtheeffectonproportionbytheintroductionofthePointedArchintoRomanesquework 243

148.LaonCathedral.RespondinChoirAisle 248149-151.Diagramsexplainingthesystemofmoulding 248152.ClothMarketatYprès Toface262153.WarehousesatNuremburg 262154-156.DiagramsconcerningWindows 278157.St.Pantaleon’sChurch,Cologne 278158.BurghChurch,Norfolk.Chancel,Windowfrom 279159-164.DiagramsofRere-arches 280165.BroughtonChurch,Oxfordshire.Windowfrom 283166.Christchurch,Hants.NorthTransept, do. 283167.StoneChurch,Kent. do. 284168.Chancel,BreconPriory 285

169.WinchesterCathedral.DeLucy’swork 286170.FurnessAbbey.BayofChapter-house 287171.ChapelofSt.Etheldreda,Holborn.WestWindow Toface287172. Do. do. East do. Toface287173.SalisburyCathedral.Chapter-house 288174.LincolnCathedral.EasterSepulchre 305175. Do. CapitalsnorthsideofChoir 306176-177.WestminsterAbbey.CarvedCapitalsfrom 311178-179.WestminsterAbbey.Angels,fromtheTriforiumoftheSouthTransept 312

180.WestminsterAbbey.MosaicfromtheTomboftheChildrenofHenryIII.andEdwardI. 313

181.TempleChurch,London.Capitals,WestDoor 314182.Montmartre.Capitalsfrom 319183.St.JulienlePauvre,Paris.PlanofChoir 320184. Do. ViewofChoir 321185. Do. SouthAisleofChoir 322186. Do. Chapel,southsideofChoir 323187-188.NôtreDame,Paris.WesternPortals.Corbelsfrom 324189-191.St.MartinauxChamps,Paris.Capitalsfrom 325192.ElBarah,CentralSyria.Capitalfrom 336

ERRATA.

Page81,Fig.19,forTempleofMars,Ultor,readTempleofMarsUltor.“ 94, line 26, for Choir at the Trinity Chapel, read Choir and the Trinity

Chapel.“170,Contents,line6,forStanford,readStamford.“175,foot-note,forBeavais,readBeauvais.

MEDIÆVALARCHITECTURE.

LECTUREI.

TheClaimsofMediævalArchitectureuponourStudy.

Introduction—Art follows the course of civilisation—Three primâ facie claims Gothic Architecture hasuponStudy—Additionalclaim,thatitisChristianArchitecture—Objectionstothetitle—Explanationsofthe term—Byzantine the earliest Christian style—Summary of the Historical claims of MediævalArchitecture—Itsintrinsicclaims—Abstractbeauty—Advantagesofanarcuatedoveratrabeatedstyle—Facility in decorating construction, and in converting structural features into elements of beauty—Adaptabilitytovariedclimates—Unitesallartsinone—Paintedglass—Sculpture—Foliatedsculpture—GothicArchitecturesuitedtotheseverestandmostelegantstyles—Beautyofexternaloutline—Delicacyofmouldings—Religious solemnity of the interior of its temples—The spirit withwhich the study ofMediævalArchitectureshouldbeundertaken—Howtobepursued—Practicalobjectsforwhichitshouldbefollowedup.

ITiswith feelingssomewhatcloselyborderingupon trepidation that,availingmyselfofthelibertygivenbytheregulationsrecentlypassedbytheCounciloftheRoyalAcademy,Iventuretoaddressyouonasubjectwhichhasnever,tillnow, beenmore than incidentally touched uponwithin thesewalls; a subject,indeed, dear to my heart, and entwined among my inmost thoughts andaffections,butonewhich,perhapsforthatveryreason,Ifeelitthemoredifficultto bring before you through themedium of a lecture. It may be at first sightimagined that love, of all the human feelings, is that best calculated to aid indescribing the beauties of its object, and in advocating its claims upon theadmiration; but it is not so.We can hardly state the reasonswhywe love ourparentsorourbrothers.Weknowthatit isafeelingwhichhasgrownwithourgrowth,andisapartofourveryexistence;yetitisprobablethatanacquaintancewhohasneversharedinthesewarmersentimentsmightdescribetheircharacterandeventheirvirtuesmoresuccessfullythanourselves.Ifweseektoinvestigatethem,we find the research all too cold and toomethodical to accordwith thetoneofourfeelings;and,likethepoetwhowishedtosingoftheAtridesandofCadmus,thechordsofourheartsrespondonlyoflove.

Soitiswiththosewhohaveharbouredanearlyaffectionforthearchitectureof their native land. Strongly as I appreciate the intrinsic beauty of themonuments of classic antiquity, and the merits of very many works of theRevival,Ishoulddoubtwhetheritwerepossibleforanyunsophisticatedyouth,before studying their architecture as a science, to entertain towards itsproductions in thiscountryanyfeelingsborderinguponrealaffection.Hemaysee in them much to admire—much to lead him to study the art which hasproducedthem;andthisstudywill,nodoubt,oftenkindlethosewarmerfeelingswhichripenintolove.Butthisisaverydifferentfeelingfromthatdeepandfilialaffection which many a youth, untaught in art, but gifted by nature with aperceptionof itsbeauties,hasentertained fromhis tenderestyears towards theoldchurchesofhisneighbourhood, andwhichhas impelledhim towalk from

village to village, not only under the balmy influences of summer, but alongmuddy roads or snowy paths, and, with glowing heart but shivering hand, tosketch the humble porch, the unaspiring steeple, and the mutilated thoughvenerablemonument,withfeelingsofindescribabledelight.

It is this instinctive affectionwhich it is sodifficult to reasonupon, and towhichcold investigationseemssouncongenial;yetmostpleasant it is, inafterlife,tofindevernewproofthatourearlyfeelingshavenotbeenmisplaced;thatthose 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 toadmitsomeof itsbeauties; that thestyle,oncedespised,hasbecomegraduallyappreciated, and its study become the favourite pursuit of thousands—everycountyhavingitssocietyorganisedtopromoteit;thatineverycountryinwhichitonceflourished(Italyherselfnotexcepted),thesamerevivedfeelingtowardsit has arisen; and, finally, that this distinguished Academy has stamped it asequallyclassicwiththearchitectureoftheancientworld,andadmittedit toanequalplaceintheinstructionsofferedtoherstudents.

Having found it impracticable, fromprevious engagements, to give, as hadbeen kindly suggested to me, a short course of lectures during this season, IproposeonthepresentoccasiontolimitmyselftosomeintroductoryremarksonthestudyofMediævalarchitecture,whichItrust,withthekindpermissionoftheCouncil, to follow up next year by one or two further lectures, both upon itsoriginalproductions,andupon thebearingof thestudyof themuponourownpracticeandthearchitectureofthefuture.

I will commence by considering the different claims which Pointedarchitecturehasuponourstudy.

Themorecarefullyweexamine into the subject, the stronger and themorenumerousdowe find these claims tobe.Toa casualobserver, the interestwefeelinthesubjectmayappeartobetheresultoflocalprejudiceorofarbitrarychoice,andourMediævalstylesmayseemtohavenogreaterclaimuponusthanthose of a hundred other periods or countries. The fact, however, is the veryreverse—thatPointedarchitectureismarkedoutfromothersinthemostsignalandremarkablemanner.Iwillbrieflypointoutsomeofthecircumstanceswhichthusespeciallysingleitout.

Intracingthehistoryofcivilisation,wecannotfailtoperceivethat,fromtheearliest ages to the present, it has followed one not unbroken, yet connectedstream,and thoughbrancheshavestruckoff indifferentdirections, ithaseverhad one main channel, which at each period represents the central mass ofcivilisation;thisstream,passingnowthroughthiscountryandnowthroughthat,

butitsplacebeingnearlyalwayssomarkedastoleavenodoubtastowhere,ineach succeeding age, the main seat of civilisation is to be found. Art has inregularsuccessionfollowedinthesamecourse—themainchannelofcivilisationandarthavingbeenthesame,thougheachpossessingitsminorbranches.

The earliest seats of mental culture were the great valleys of Egypt andMesopotamia. There, too,were the cradles of primitive art. The less enduringmaterials of the Eastern valley have deprived us of the remains of its earlierarchitecture,buttheimperishableruinsofEgyptwilltelltillearth’sclosingdayhowmightywasherprimævalcivilisation.

Persia seems to have succeeded to Egypt and Assyria as well in art as indominion;butlongbeforeherpoliticalpowerhadbeenoverthrown,thestreamof mental power had been transferred to Greece, whose arts and knowledge,partly indigenous and partly derived from Egypt and Assyria, so infinitelyexcelledallwhichhadprecededthem,thatweareapt,andwithreason,toviewthemastheonlygenuineartandcivilisationoftheancientworld.

Rome, succeeding Greece in external power, borrowed both her arts andliterature,but,throughoutherwholecareer,wasassubordinatetoherintheseasshewaspredominantinpower;andwhenthatgreatcatastropheoccurredwhichcrushedtodustthemightyfabricofRomandomination,itwasagaininGreecethatcivilisationandartflowedon,anditwasthencethatthosefriendlystreamsproceededwhich enabled theGothic conquerors of Rome to reconstruct whattheyhaddestroyed,andamongthedébrisofancientartandknowledgetosowtheseedsandtofosterthegrowthofthatricherandmightiercivilisationwhichdistinguishesthemodernfromtheancientworld.

In all its earlier stages, the growth of civilisation in themodern, as in theancientworld,wasmarked by corresponding changes in its architecture.Eachage had its architectural style distinctly and strongly marked; a style which,thoughconnecting itselfunmistakeablywith the longchainof ancient art that,though rudelybroken in theWest,hadbeencontinuous in theEasternempire,wasneverthelesssodistinctfromanyformerlinkinthatchainasclearlytomarkanewdynastyinhumanaffairs,andtoshowthatthestreamwhichhadpassedsuccessively through Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Greece, and Rome, was nowmaking wide and deep its channel among those Gothic nations whoseprogenitorshadbeenviewedastheenemiesofartandknowledge,andthattheseatofartwashenceforth tobeestablishedamong thosevigorousraceswhichhaddestroyedthatoftheancientworld.

My object in going over thiswell-beaten path is to draw your attention tothree verymarkedprimâ facie claimswhichGothic architecture has upon our

study.Firstly,that,thoughweareinthehabitofconsideringitantiquated,itisinfact the architecture of themodern as distinguished from the ancientworld—that,justasthearchitectureoftheearlierhalfoftheworld’shistoryculminatedin that of Greece, which must ever be viewed as its most perfect and mostglorious representative, so did the indigenous architecture of the newerworldreachitsculminatingpointinthethirteenthandfourteenthcenturiesamongthenationsofWesternEurope—thedepositariesofanewcivilisation.Secondly,thatit is the architecture of the Germanic nations, through whose land the mainstream of civilisation now runs, as of old it did through Greece, Egypt, andRome.And, thirdly, that it is the latestoriginal styleof architecturewhich thecivilisedworldhasproduced;thatthechainofarchitecturalstyles,commencinginEgypt,andpassingonincontinuouscoursethroughAssyria,Persia,Greece,Rome, and Byzantium, and thence taken up by the infant nations of modernEurope,andbythemprolongedthroughsuccessiveagesofcontinuousprogress,terminated in thestylewhichweare treatingof,andhasneversinceproducedanotherlinkofitsown.

As, then, thearchitectureofEgyptclaimsour respectas theearliest link inthe history of architecture, so are our ownMediæval styles especiallymarkedout from all others as being its latest creation. That continuous stream ofindigenousartwhichfromtheearliestagesoftheworldhadunceasinglyflowedonwards—now through this country, and now through that; now smoothlyflowingonthroughadeepandcopiouschannel,andnowchokedupwithrocks,orspreadingitselfsluggishlyandunhealthilythroughmarshesandmorasses,butever progressing—seemed at the end of the periodwe are speaking of to turnbackuponitscourse,and,insteadofcreatingasheretoforeevernewbeautiesofits own, to content itselfwith reproducing thoseofbygoneperiods: insteadofillustrating, as itwere, thecollateral streamofcivilisationwhich flowedon somightilybyitsside, itaccompanieditbyimagesof thatofanolderworld—ofanother family of nations—of another religion; and since then, thoughcivilisation has rolled on in a continuous course, it has failed to produce anystyleofarchitectureofitsown.

Mediæval architecture, then, is distinguished from all other styles as beingthe last linkof themightychainwhichhad stretchedunbroken throughnearly4000 years—the glorious termination of the history of original and genuinearchitecture.

ThenextclaimtowhichIwilldirectyourattentionis, thatourstyleis,parexcellence,Christianarchitecture.

Thisisaclaimwhichitissomuchthefashionofthedaytodispute,andeven

to deride, that it demands somewhat careful investigation.ManywhohavenohesitationinusingthetermsMahometan,Hindoo,orBuddhistarchitecture,andwhodonotintheleastdenytheinfluenceofthevariousreligionsoftheancientsupontheirmodesofbuilding,seenothingbutfanaticisminattributinganysuchinfluencetoChristianity;oriftheydonotdenythisinfluence,theyviewPointedarchitectureasthespecialpropertyoftheRomanChurch(thoughRomeherselfboasts of having scarcely admitted it within her walls), and find no style tosymbolise their Protestantism but that derived from the heathenism of theancient world, and whose more recent type is to be found in the greatmetropolitanchurchofmodernRome.

Othermorereasoningpersonsobject that,asChristianity, in itspurestages,adoptedamodifiedformoftheancientRomanstyle,andbentittoitsuses,theRoman style became by that process a bona fide Christian architecture; andfurther argue thatPointed architecture, havingderived someof its forms fromthe Saracenic, has thereby lost its title to being considered a purely Christianstyle.

To meet these objections, it is necessary to explain what we mean byChristianarchitecture.

Therecanbenodoubt thatnearlyall formsofarchitecturehave taken theirriseinthetemple,whoseformandcharacterhavebeenregulatedbythereligionforwhich itwas erected. From the temple it has diffused itself throughout allclasses of buildings, carrying with it, in a certain degree, the feeling it hadalready acquired. No one will deny this of the Egyptian, the Greek, or theSaracenic; and so inconsistent are people on such questions, that the verypersonswhowouldlaughattheterm“Christianarchitecture”willalmostinthesamebreathobject to theuseofour style for secularbuildings,on thegroundthatitwillmakethemlooklikechurches!

Now, what we claim for Pointed architecture is, not that it is the onlyChristian stylewhichhasarisenor is likely toarise,but that ithasbeenmoreentirely developed under the influence of the Christian religion, and morethoroughly carries out its tone and sentiment than any other style. It is notexclusively,butpareminence,Christian.TheearlyChristiansnaturallyadoptedthestylewhichwasreadymadetotheirhands.Thatthisstyle,astheyfoundit,wasessentiallyPagan,itwouldbeabsurdtodeny;butitwastheonlyonetheyknew;and,carefullyavoiding the typesofPagantemples, theyadoptedoneofits secular forms, and wholly adapted it to their uses. The buildings thusproducedwereunmistakeablyChristian,butitwouldbeabsurdtosaysooftheirstyle. This being nearly identical with that of their Heathen predecessors, it

neededalongcourseofremouldingbeforeitcouldjustlybepredicatedofitthatit was a Christian style—a style generated under the influence of Christiancustoms, to fulfil Christian requirements, and to harmonise fully with thesentimentsofthereligionofthosewhomadeuseofit.

TheearlieststylewhichmayfairlybecalledChristianwastheByzantine.Inthe East no sudden revolution had affected art or civilisation, but the Greekempire, founded at the moment when Christianity became the establishedreligion,wentonquietlyadaptingitsartsandinstitutionstoitsnewreligion.ArthavingalreadydegeneratedunderthelaterPaganemperors,anddifficultiesbothfromwithoutandfromwithingraduallyweakeningandunderminingthepoweroftheState,itwasnaturalthatthechangingstyleshouldnothavethatfullscopewhichwouldhavebeenaffordedithad thepurifying influencesofChristianityacquired full sway during the Augustan age. Painting, sculpture, andarchitecturalcarvinghadlamentablyfallenoffbeforetheyweretransferredfromthe Heathen temple to the Christian church, and even the more mechanicalfeaturesofRomanarchitecturehaddepartedwidelyfromtheiroriginalpurityofform.ThetaskprescribedtothenewreligionwasnottotakethehighestformofPaganartasithadexistedunderPericlesorAugustus,andtomouldittoitsownusesand itsownpurerandholiersentiments:whatshehad todealwithwasamere wreck of its former self: all its early simplicity destroyed, its vigourenervated, its magic instinct for beauty gone, its artists fast falling back intobarbarism;andthatnotthesavagenessofearlybutuntutoredart,buttheeffeteand nerveless heartlessness of a race whose glory had departed. It was thislifeless body which Christianity had to awaken to new energy—this dull andspiritlesslumpoutofwhichshehadtomouldherfuturearts,andthatatatimewhenthewesternhalfoftheempirewasabouttobecrushedtopowderbythemightystormofNorthernbarbarism,andtheeasternportionitselfweakenedbygradual decay and by the incursions of the Goths, Huns, Persians, etc., andeventuallybythetremendousinundationofthefollowersofMahomet.Thatsucha glorious result as Byzantine architecture should have been produced out ofmaterials so lifeless, and through the agency of a decaying nation, speaksvolumesforthepowerofreligionoverart.

Letusturn,however,totheWesternempire.Therethecaseisstillstronger.Withthesamedecayedandlifelessartastheirnucleus,thepeopleofChristianRome had the additional disadvantage caused by the removal of the seat ofgovernment,andwithitoftheseatofart,toConstantinople;nevertheless,theirfirsteffortsweresosuccessful,thatthough,inthewordsofThomasHope,“Thearchitectureof theHeathenRomans, in itsdeterioration, followed so regular a

course, that that which most nearly preceded the conversion of its rulers toChristianityisalsotheworst,”—thesameauthortellsusthat“theearlyChristianbuildings,fromtheirsimplicity,thedistinctness,themagnificence,theharmonyof their component parts, had a grandeur which we seek in vain in thecomplicatedarchitectureofmodernchurches.”

What course art would have taken had the Roman empire continued it isimpossibletojudge.Itwasdestinedtosharethefateoftheempireitself,andtobeutterlyoverwhelmedbythatmightydelugewhichseverstheancientfromthemodern world; so that its Christianisation, instead of being gradual andprogressive,asintheEast,becameacompletereconstructionbythesuccessorsofthosewhohaddestroyedit,thoughaidedintheirworkbythefriendlyhandsof thosewho, in theEasternempire,hadkeptalight the lampofcivilisation.[1]ThearchitectureoftheWest,therefore,insteadofbeingameretranslationoftheold style from Pagan to Christian uses and expression, was a new creation,formed,it is true,outoftheancientdébris,butneverthelessoriginated,carriedon, and perfected by Christian nations and for Christian uses, and may,consequently,besaid,eveninastrongersensethanthatofByzantium, tobeadistinct Christian style; and I suppose none would doubt that its culminatingpoint,andthat towhichall itsprogresstended,wasthePointedarchitectureofthethirteenthandfourteenthcenturies.

AnargumentagainstitsclaimtothetitlehasbeenfoundedonthetheorythatthePointedarch,whichis,insomerespects,theculminatingfeatureofthestyle,was not developed spontaneously by our Christian forefathers, but learned bythem from the Saracens. As well might it be attempted to sever Grecianarchitecture from themythology and traditions of theGreeks,merely becausesome of its details may find their prototypes in Egypt or Assyria, or todisconnect thenative architectureof India from their religion, because its firstinspiration seems traceable to the Fire-worshippers of ancient Persia! EvenSaracenicarchitectureitselfwasanemanationfromthatofChristianGreece;sothatifweareindebtedtoitforthePointedarch(aquestionwhichIwillnotnowattempt to investigate), sheonlypaidback to the religion fromwhich shehadborrowed.Noone, however, can study the tendencies of the lateRomanesquewithoutseeingthatthePointedarchwasbecomingeverydaymorenecessarytothe development of the germ which the rising style contained. The graduallyincreasingpredominanceof theverticalover thehorizontal, the increase in theheightofpillarsandjambsdemandingaproportionateadditiontothearch;thenecessities of groined vaulting over oblong spaces, and a hundred otherevidences, proved the Pointed arch to be the inevitable result of the already

attained developments; and often had it, almost unconsciously, appeared inintersectingarcades.IfitssystematicadoptioncanwithcertaintybetracedtothesuggestivearchitectureoftheEast,surelythisdoesnotunchristianisethealreadyChristianarchitectureof the soldiersof theCross,whobrought the ideahomeamongthespoilswonfromtheirunbelievingfoes!Isitnotratherinthespiritofourreligiontoreceivetributeandhomagefromallthenationsoftheearth?AndifitmaybesaidoftheChristianChurchthat

“EasternJavathereKneelswiththenativeofthefarthestwest;AndÆthiopiaspreadsabroadthehand,Andworships,”

itisequallyreasonabletoexpectofhermaterialtemplesthat

“TheloomsofOrmus,andtheminesofInd,AndSaba’sspicygroves,paytributethere.”

Thecharacterofastyleofartdoesnotdependuponthemerematerialfromwhich ithasbeen fabricated,butupon the sentimentsunderwhich ithasbeendeveloped.Werenotthisthecase,allstyles,excepting,perhaps,thoseinChinaandCentralAmerica,withafewothersstillmoreobscure,wouldbemoreorlessconnectedwiththereligionofEgyptorofNineveh;whereas,infact,everyraceuptothesixteenthcentury,hadsomouldedtheoriginalmaterialsuponwhichitsartshadbeen foundedas to render themexpressive, inagreatdegree,of theirownsentiments,andespeciallyoftheirownreligion;andmorestronglythaninanyothercasewasitsowithourownforefathers,whendevelopingthelatestofall styles of genuine architecture, and moulding it to harmonise with thesentimentofourholyreligion.

The lastof thehistoricalclaimsofPointedarchitecture towhich Iwill callyourattentionis,thatitisthenativearchitectureofourowncountry,andthatofour own forefathers. Here, again, I must define my meaning for the sake ofmeeting a class of objectors who delight to attach a false and exaggeratedmeaningtoanexpression.

Idonot, then,meanthatPointedarchitecturebelongs tous inanydifferentsense from that in which it belongs to France or Germany: I do notmean torevivetheclaimsofourcountrytoitsorigination,nortoassertinitsbehalfanypre-eminentshareinitsdevelopment.AllImeantourgeisthesimplefactthat,by whatever members of our family of nations it was shared, it was,nevertheless, thearchitectureofourowncountry—justasmuchEnglishasweareourselves—asindigenoustoourcountryasareourwildflowers,ourfamily

names,ourcustoms,orourpoliticalconstitution.In England, as in France andGermany, the sameRomanesque architecture

had (with local varieties) grown up with the new civilisation; as it perfecteditself it showed in each the same tendencies and the same yearnings, whichPointedarchitecturecouldalone satisfy. If itwere so that thesewereat lengthmetbysuggestionsfromtheEast, itwasourforefatherswhofought theresideby sidewith thoseofourneighbours, and the lessons learnedand the trophieswonwerecommonproperty.ItispossiblethatFrancewasmorerapidinmakinguseofthem,anditiscertainthatGermanywasthemosttardyindoingso;butineachtheresulthadlongbeenaimedat;ineachitwasthenaturalconsequenceofwhathadalreadybeenattained;andwas thereforenot thepropertyofone,butthe common inheritance of all; and each having attained it, carried it on anddevelopeditinherownway,thusmakingitineverysenseherown.

I am, however, only urging this as a claimwhich our old architecture hasuponourownstudy.IfweinvestigatethearchitectureofEgypt,ofAssyria,orofPersia,wefindthatittellsofraceswithwhomwehavenonationalorpersonalsympathy. Ifwego to theclassicshoresofGreece, though thereweshouldbeviewingtheworkofaracewhoseartsandliteratureare,morethanthoseofanyotherpeople,thepropertyoftheworld,weneverthelessfailtofindanythingtoconnecttheminanyspecialsensewithourselves.IfwetransferourresearchesfromGreecetoRome—thoughwenowviewthevestigesofthatmightyempirewhoseworld-wideswaystretcheditsironsceptreoverourownland,andthoughwe find among them the germ of the arcuated architecture which forms thenucleusofourownstyles—theyarestillseveredfromusbysowideagulfthat,were it not for themodern revival of their style, theywould appear perfectlyalien toour race andclimate.All these studiesmustbe followedup indistantlands, excepting only those few fragments ofRomanwork scattered here andthereinourownandneighbouringcountries—theevidencesofuniversalempire,the footsteps and symbols of ancient servitude. How different is the study ofGothic architecture! Its original exemplars are at our own doors; the verychurches, perhaps, in which from our infancy we have worshipped; themonumentsofourownforefathers; theworksofmenbearingourownnames,whosearmorialbadgeswearestillproudtouse;whospoke,initspristineform,ourownlanguage;whosat inourownParliaments,were lordsofstill-existingmanors, founders of still-surviving charities, men who fought the battles ofwhichwearestillproud,andlaidthefoundationsofourlibertiesandofallthoseinstitutionswhichrender thenameofEngland illustriousamong thenationsoftheearth.Surelythearchitecturewhichgrewupamongmensonearlyalliedto

ushasapre-eminentclaimuponourattention!Ihavethustracedoutwhatappeartometobetheleadinghistoricalclaimsof

thestylewearetreatingof,andwhichIwillrecapitulateasbeing—

Istly. That it is the architecture of the modern, as distinguished from theancientworld.

2dly.ThatitisthearchitectureofthenationswhollyorpartiallyofGermanicorigin,inwhosehandsthecivilisationofthemodernworldhasbeenvested.

3dly.That it is the latest link in thechainofgenuineandoriginal stylesofarchitecture, a chain commencingwith the first settlement of the human race,andterminatinginGothicarchitecture.

4thly.Thatitis,inastrongersensethancanbepredicatedofanyotherstyle,Christianarchitecture.

5thly, and lastly. That it is pre-eminently the architecture of our ownforefathersandofourownland.

Iwill nowproceed to direct your attention to someof themore prominentamongitsintrinsicclaims.

Commencing, then, with its abstract beauty, I will not treat this as acomparative,butasapositive,quality.Differencesoftasteandeducationleadustoformvariedestimatesoftherelativemeritsoftheseveralstylesofart,butthemostdevotedfollowerofclassicantiquitycouldscarcelyquestion theabsoluteandintrinsicbeautyofaGothiccathedral.Everystyleofarchitecturehashaditsownglories.ThemightyHallatKarnac; theHallofXerxesatPersepolis; thatmodel of symmetry, the Parthenon; theColiseum at Rome; and that gorgeouscongeries of domes which canopied the shrine of Holy Wisdom atConstantinople,allrankamongthemostnobleoftheworksofman;butwhoisthere soprejudiced as to deny theworthiness of thoseglorious templeswhichpresideinaugustserenityoverthecitiesofNorthernEuropetoanequalplaceinour admiration? Surely, if abstract beauty and intrinsic grandeur alone areconsidered, the cathedrals of Amiens, of Rheims, of Chartres, of Bourges, ofStrasburg,ofCologne,ofLincoln,Salisbury,orYork,withahundredothers,willnot suffer by comparison with the works of any previous age? Nay, I amconvinced thatanunprejudicedumpirewouldgomuchfurther,andpronouncetheminmostrespectsfarsuperiortotheworksofearlierages;butmyargumentonlyrequiresthattheyshouldbeadmittedastheirequals.

ThenextclaimIwillstateisthis—thatastrabeatedarchitecturewasbroughtto itshighestperfectionby theGreeks, so theothergreat typeofconstruction,

arcuated architecture,was perfected by theMediæval builders; the round-archvarietyinthetwelfth,andthepointed-archinthetwosucceedingcenturies.Noonewho gives the subject amoment’s considerationwill doubt the enormousadvantagesofthearcuatedoverthetrabeatedsystem:indeed,withthematerialswe have at command in this country, the former style in its purity is inmostcases impracticable, as is shown by half our modern attempts at it being inrealityarcuationplasteredovertolookliketrabeation.

Thepeculiaradvantagesofthepointedarch(thoughIdonoturgethemtotheexclusionofotherforms)are itsgreaterpowerofcarryingweight; its lessenedthrust; the facilitywithwhich itproportions itsheight to thatof its supportingjambs,andthegeneralfeelingofthebuildinginwhichitisused,whethermoreorlessverticalinitstendency;anditsgreatadvantagesingroinedvaulting.

The next quality Iwillmention is the extraordinary facility of our style indecorating construction, and in converting structural and useful features intoelementsofbeauty.Thearch,itsnormalfeature,suppliestoitanendlessstoreofbeauty. The vault supplies another inexhaustible fund, and assumes formsunrivalled in any other style. The window, comparatively neglected by theancientarchitects,andevenhatedbytheGreeks,was,inthehandsoftheGothicbuilders, a perfect treasury of architectural loveliness; and the introduction ofwindow-glass,aninventionnearlyunknowntotheancients,becamethesourceofanentirelynewandmostenchantingart, andonewhichexercised themostsurprisinginfluenceuponarchitecture.Thebuttress,thenaturalbutunpromisingaccompanimentofanarcuatedstyle,became in theirmagichands,a sourceofstateliness and varied beauty. The roof, unwillingly shown by the Classicbuilders,addssolemndignitytotheworksoftheirNorthernsuccessors;while,ifneedbe,itstimbersaremadetocontributeliberallytotheeffectoftheinterior.Thecampanile,astructureresultingwhollyfrompracticalnecessity,becamethegreatestornamentofChristiancities,andsuppliedanendlessvarietyofmajesticforms,which had no parallels in ancient architecture; and generally,whateverfeature,whetherhomelyorotherwise,constructionorutilitydemanded,wasatonceenlisted, and thatwith rightgoodwill andheartiness, among theessentialelementsofthedesign.

Carryingoutthesamespirit,nomaterialwaseithertoorichortoorustictofind an honourable place in the works of these truly Catholic builders. ThevariedmarblesoftheAppenines, thepolishedamethystsofBohemia, theglassmosaicsoftheByzantines,withgoldandsilver,enamel,brass,andiron,wereallbroughtundertributetomaketheirricherworksglorious;yettheywereequallyathomeintheuseofbrick,orflint,orrubble,anddidnotdespiseevenahomely

coatingofplaster,ifonlyitwerehonestlyandtruthfullyused.And,whatismoreremarkable,theyexcelledintheuseofnearlyeveryoneofthesematerials,andvaried their design with instinctive precision to meet every one of theirindividualconditions.

Carrying on the same spirit a step further,Gothic architecture shapes itselfinstinctivelytovariedclimateandlocaltradition,andthatwithoutsacrificingitsleading principles. It is true that its great normal types are found inNorthernEurope,and that thenorthofFrancemay,perhaps,beconsideredas itscentralprovince;yethowadmirablydoesitshapeitselftothevariedconditionsofItalyorSpain,tothevalleysofSwitzerlandortheinhospitableshoresofScandinavia!whileineverycountrywhereitprevaileditassumesanationaltype,andineveryprovincealocalvariety.

In the same way, again, it suits itself to every grade and every class ofbuildingtowhichitisapplied.Itisequallyathomeinthehumblechapeloftherustichamletasinthemetropolitancathedral.ThetravellerthroughLincolnshireisnolesscharmedbythevillagechurcheswhichriseinsuchprofusionfromitslevelsurface thanwith themajesticminster,which, fromits loftysite, surveysthewhole county; nor are we, after wondering at the stupendous grandeur ofYork, thelessdisposedtobedelightedwiththelittlevillagechapelatSkelton;andeventherudeststructuresofthemostobscuredistrictpossessatruthfulnessand a sentimentwhich doesmore than compensate for their rusticity. To passagaintodifferentclassesofbuilding,theMediævalcastles,thoughbelongingtoaclasswhichthealteredmodesofwarfarehaverenderedobsolete,areintheirdegree as noble and as thoroughly suited to their purpose as the sacredstructures. The manor-house, the farm, and the cottage, show equalappropriatenessoftreatment.Thetimberstreet-frontsofCoventryorBrunswick;the brick houses of Lubeck or of the Lombard cities, or those of stone atNuremberg—allevincethesamepowerofmeetingtheconditionsofpurposeormaterial;while the vastwarehouses of the commercial cities ofGermany, thetownhallsofFlanders,andthetithebarnsofanEnglishvillageare,intheirway,as admirable and as appropriate as the minster at Rheims or the castle atCarnarvon.

Again,Gothicarchitectureunitesallartsinone,more,perhaps,thanhasbeeneffectedbyanyotherstyle,or,tosaytheleast,fullyasmuchso.

In itsnormal formastonearchitecture, itdoesnotmakeallothermaterialsconformtothiscondition,buttreatsthemeachaccordingtoitsowndemands.Itisalmostequallysuccessful inits timberroofsasinitsstoneconstruction,andequallyperfectinwoodasinstonecarving;ittreatsironandbrassinamanner

perfectlysuitedtothevaryingconditions;itbringsinpainteddecorationsoftherichestorthesimplestcharacter,asbestsuitsthebuilding;ithasintroducedoneall-pervadingartentirelyof itsown—Imeanpaintedglass;andnoartperhapsever contributed in so large a degree to the increaseof architectural effect: itsjewellery,enamels,ivorycarving,embroidery,tapestry,andallotherartsareinperfectharmony;andthoughitfellshortoftheClassicstylesintheperfectionofits figuresculpture, itpossessedevenhereasolemnandseveredignity,hardlyequalledat anyperiod,and itsdraperiesoftenexceeded inbeauty thoseof theClassicsculptors.

In describing the sculptures atWellsCathedral, our revered professor,whopossesses,inagreaterdegreethananyonewhomitismyprivilegetoknow,thehappiness of being susceptible of enthusiastic emotion from the beauties of arivalschoolofarttothattowhichhehasespeciallydevotedhimself,makesthefollowingremarks:—

“Regardedintherightspirit,weshallwonderattheinexhaustibleresourcesoftheartistindelineatingthevariousandoppositecharactersofhismultifariouscomposition—inwhichnotwoare tobefoundalike,and ineachofwhichwefind the appropriate idea—and the fulness of embodiment which sustains thedramatis personæ throughout, with an untiring energy of impersonation incostume,symbol,andaction,whichexcitesourwarmestadmiration.

“We have the sanctity of the Monk, the meekness and abstraction of thesupremePontiff; theArchbishop; the pious energyof theBishop in the act ofbenediction; the prudent Abbot; the devoted Anchorite; the haughty andimposingKing;thestarkconquerorfiercelyjustifyinghisusurpation;theplacidand impassible Confessor administering his good old laws ...; the inspiredEvangelist or themalignant sprite;—eachandall discoveringa racyenergyofconceptionwhichtheinformedartistmayenvy.”

Again: “The Mediæval artist appealed sometimes to the imagination, andsometimestotheconscience;andthusgaveadegreeofsentimenttohisworks,whichthemodernscanscarcelyattempt,—muchlessattain....

“ButitisthemoralunderstandingoftheartistwhichismostaffectedbythecontemplationofsovastanassemblageofChristianart,ascontrastedwith theClassical,containedinourmuseumsorinancientmonuments.HabituatedtotheGrecianmodel,inwhichtheprideoflife,thesensualityofbeauty,asuperhumanenergy, or an unreal Elysium are assumed, deluding with a beau-ideal, anddisappointingtoallhumanexperience,heisbroughtheretothefulladmissionoftherealitiesandtrueconditionsofhumanexistence—probationbythesweatofthe brow, and the grand achievement of eternal life. Art is here employed to

impressthegreatlessonsofTruth,thewarfareoftheworld,thesubjugationofthe natural to the spiritualman, the honest employment of the intellect in thegreat cause of religion....No characters enter into this picturewhich have notbeensignalisedbysomegreatgoodtosociety,orsomegreat triumphoverall-absorbing self.Wisdom in its true sense, and varying energies of personal orintellectualstrength,inagreatcause,aretheonlypassportstoadmissionintheserecords.”

Ineednotapologiseforquotingatsomuchlengthfromhimwhohassooftenandsoeloquentlyaddressedyoufromthisplace,andcannotrefrainfromaddingthe following admirable reflections towhich theworkhewasdescribinggaverise:—

“Thepoeticfaculty,thefinesenseofbeauty,grace,andhumour,arethegiftsofnature:technicalandmechanicalskillmaybeacquiredbyacademyandhappycircumstances.Theunionofthesequalifications,whichisrequisitetoperfectioninaworkofart,isindeedararefelicity:theirseparateexistenceisamelancholyfact,exhibitedbythehistoryofschools;inwhich,forthemostpartmechanismand technicality usurp thehigher attainment, and thewidedistinctionbetweentheprofessionalpractitionerandtheinbornartistismadeapparenttous.Buttheendofallsoundcriticismshouldbetorecognisethesedistinctions;toseizethepoetical conception, however encumbered with a faulty execution; and toappreciate in their truemerit themore exalted and the rarer qualities; else thepoet descends to the grammarian, and the intellectual artist to thehandicraftsman.”

In foliated sculpture theMediæval artists exceeded those of, perhaps, anyother period. In their works you find the finest specimens of conventional orimaginaryfoliage,—foundedonnaturalprinciples,yetnotimitatedfromnature,—thebestinstancesoftheintroductionofnaturalfoliage,eitherwhollyorunitedwith theconventional,—andthemostadmirableexamplesofconventionalisingnature,or,asMr.Ruskindefinesit,“bringingitintoservice,”soastosuitittothe material and to the forms, conditions, and purposes of architecturaldecoration,whether in relief or in painting. And not the least valuable of thelessonswelearnfromthemistheacknowledgmentofthemindandimaginationoftheartworkman,whowasnot,asinclassicarchitecture,employedtomakeforhiscapitals,orotherfeatures,anindefinitenumberoffacsimilesofasinglemodel,much less, as inmostmodernworks, tocopy inahundredbuildingsamodel which its author never meant to be used but in one; but after havingacquiredadueamountofskillinthearrangementandexecutionofhisfoliage,andadueknowledgeofthegeneraltoneandfeelingwhichthearchitectdesired

toexpress,wasthenleft,underonlygeneralguidance,totheindulgenceofhisowninventiveandartisticfaculties,andthusrenderedeverycapital,everyboss,andeverycuspadistinctandseparateworkofart, thoughall inharmonywiththeidealofthewholedesign.

In variety of expression Gothic architecture is excelled by none, beingequallycapableofthesternestandmostmajesticseverity,andthemostexquisiteandrefinedelegance,aswellasofalltheintermediatevarieties.

Inbeautyofexternaloutlinenootherstyleofarchitectureapproachesit;andin the variety, depth, and refined delicacy of the profiles of its mouldings itstandsunrivalled.Timewouldfailmetotellofthewonderfulmannerinwhichour style shapes itself to every accidental requirement; grapples with everydifficulty,andconvertsitintoasourceofbeauty;disdains,ontheonehand,allartificiallyeffectedsymmetry,nor,ontheother,fearstosubmittothemostrigiduniformity, should theconditionsof the case require it, beingequallynoble inthecastle,wherenotwopartsarealikeor,asintheHallatYpres,wherescarcelyanytwoaredifferent;howitmeetseveryemergencywiththeutmostfranknessandhonesty;howitdisdainsalldeception;thuscontrastingitself,notwithothergenuine styles, for none really systematically admit of shams, but with thedespicable trickinesswhichourmodernarchitectshave learnedfromtheirownplasterersandhouse-painters.NorhaveItimetotreatoftheboldness,freedom,andoriginalityofitsconceptions.But,aboveall,itsgreatgloryisthesolemnityof religiouscharacterwhichpervades the interiorof its temples.To this all itsotherattributesmustbend,asitisthiswhichrendersitsopre-eminentlysuitedto the highest uses of the Christian Church. It was this probably which ledRomneytoexclaim,thatifGrecianarchitecturewastheworkofgloriousmen,Gothicwastheinventionofgods.

Having—I fear at too great length—sketched out the claims of Mediævalarchitectureuponyourstudy,Iwillconcludewithafewremarksastothespiritwithwhich that studyshouldbeundertaken, themanner inwhich it shouldbepursued,andthepracticalobjectsforwhichitshouldbefollowedup.

Inthefirstplace,Iwillpremisethatyourstudiesshouldnotbeundertakeninaspiritofmereantiquarianism.Weoweverymuchtoantiquaries,andfarbeitfrommetodepreciatethevalueoftheirresearches;onthecontrary,Ithinkthatthe enlightened system onwhich they are followed up is one of the things ofwhichouragehastobeproud,andoneforwhich,asloversofart,wehavegreatcauseforgratitude;nordoIwishtodiscouragethepursuitofsuchinvestigationsbyarchitects.Itis,insomedegree,anecessaryaccompanimenttotheirstudies,andwill always add interest to them.What Iwish to suggest is that our own

propersubjectisartratherthanantiquity.Thefactthatthetypesfromwhichwehave to study have grown old is accidental: their merits and their value areperfectlyirrespectiveoftheirage,andwouldhavebeenasgreathadtheybeenerectedinourownday;nay,moreso,forthenweshouldbefollowingup,asinformerdays, theworksofourownimmediatepredecessors,andshouldnotbesuffering,asnow,fromagreatandunnaturalhiatusinthehistoryofourart.Inthe second place, our studies should not be undertaken in a spirit of merephilosophical investigation: that, too, is very useful in its place, and is animportant element in the study of art, though somewhat too cold to suit thefeelingswhichbelongtothetrueartist.

I would suggest two classes of sentiments as especially suited to our ownstudies,somewhatoppositeintheircharacter,andeachcalculatedtotemperandcorrectanytendencytoundueexcessintheother.Ontheonehand,Iwouldurgethatyourstudiesshouldbetheearnestfollowingupofthegenuineimpulsesofthe heart;—that their primary characteristics should be warmth, enthusiasm,veneration, and love. “Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are theissuesoflife.”Neverrepressinyourselves,norridiculeinothers,thegenerousimpulsesofenthusiasm.Theyaretheverysoulofart;theyarethefreshspringflowersoftheyouthfulmind,thelife-springofeverynoblethoughtandaction:withoutthemartwouldceasetoexist,andweshouldsinkunderthebondageofan ironage.Aboveall, cultivate these feelingsnow thatyouareyoung:guardandcherishthemasyouwouldthechoicestandtenderestofflowers;for,dependupon it, the chillingblasts of advancingyears, and the deadening contact of ahardandunsentimentalworld,willhavesufficienttendencytonipthepreciousbud almost before it has time to burst into bloom. On the other hand, it isnecessary that the exercise of this zeal, heartiness, and veneration, should beregulated by sound and discriminating judgment,—a perfect and unfetteredfreedom of thought, and an eye to real beauty of form and reasonableness ofconstructionanddesign;sothatourgenerousenthusiasmmaynotbetrayusintoformingerroneousjudgments.

Howeverperfectastyleofartmaybe,itsproductionsarenotallperfectnorallofequalmerit;whileeveryhumanarthashaditsperiodofrise,culmination,anddecline;and,enthusiasticandheart-stirringasmustbeourfeelingstowardsanyartinwhichwehopetoexcel,andintenseasmaybeourvenerationfortheskill and noble sentiment of its original masters, these feelings should in nodegreebepermittedtobluntthesensitivenessofourowninstinctiveperceptionofbeauty,whetherpositiveorrelative,nortobiasthefreedomofourjudgmentas in the comparative truthfulness, propriety, or genuineness of the works of

differentperiodsorofdifferenthands.Wemustkeepaconstantbalancebetweenourzealandourjudgment—notrepressingtheexerciseofeither,butgivingeachitsfullplay,andexercisingeachinitshighestandnoblestdegree.

InowcometothemannerinwhichMediævalarchitectureshouldbestudied.Inthefirstplace,thoughbooksandprintsareveryusefulintheirdegree,let

meimpressuponyou,inthestrongestmanner,thatallrealstudyshouldbeatthefountainhead.Youmayderiveinformationastothehistoryofartfrombooks,butknowledgeofart itselfmustbederived fromworksofart.Theknowledgederived from books and prints comes to you at second hand—you are seeingthroughothermen’seyes;thereallyusefulinformationisthatwhichyouobtainatthefirsthand,andthroughyourowneyes.Ifyoulearnafactfromabook,benever satisfied till you have proved it by your own observation; if you areimpressedwiththebeautyofabuildingfromadrawingoraprint,makesureofits being really beautiful by examining it for yourselves. Investigate everytheory, however rudimental, by actual examination of the data on which it isfounded,sothatnoneofyourknowledgeshallbemerelytakenupontrustfromothers.

During a genuine and natural state of art, every one learned it from, anddevelopeditupon,theworksofhisimmediatepredecessors.Thisnaturalcoursehavingbeenbrokenup,themostreasonablesubstituteforitistostudytheactualworkswhichsurroundus,andwhichwereproducedwhileartwasstillgenuineand unbroken.We have not to visit distant shores, and to investigate obscurefragments,—theworksofraceswhichhavevanishedfromthefaceoftheearth:we are surrounded on every side by original examples of the arts which wewouldstudy;theyaretheproductionsofourowncountryandourownrace.Thetemplesfromwhichourauthoritiesarederivedarenot thoseofanancientandbygonenation,butthoseinwhichweourselvesworship,andwithinandaroundwhose hallowedwalls sleep the remains of our own forefathers.We study nooutlandishorexoticarchitecture,but thatofbuildingswhich fromour infancywe have been taught to venerate.We have, then, no excuse if we neglect toobtainourknowledgefromthefountainhead.

The choice and order of the particular buildings which we select for ourstudiesmustdependmuchuponaccidentalcircumstances;but,asageneralrule,Iwouldadviseeachstudenttobeginwiththosewhicharereadiesttohishand.Ifyour home is in the country, visit, study, and sketch from your own parishchurch, and from those immediately surrounding you,widening your circle asyouproceed;generallystudyingthesimplerspecimensbeforeyouventureuponthemoremagnificent. Ifyoulive inLondonthecaseisdifferent.Thehumbler

specimenshavemostlyperished,buttheearneststudentwillstillfindoutmanyof which the public are ignorant. Here, however, you must for the most partattend to themoremagnificentworks, and reserve the humbler for your ruralexcursions;and,aboveall,youmustdiligentlystudythegloriousabbeychurchofWestminster—internally,perhaps, the finest inEngland,butwhich, from itsproximity, ismade nothing like somuchuse of as it ought to be.Though thevillagechurchesroundLondonhavesufferedmorethanalmostanyothers,youwould still dowell tomake pedestrian excursions among them, and carefullysketchwhatremainsofthem;andbyextendingyourexcursionstoWalthamandSt.Alban’s,toElthamandHamptonCourt,youwillfindobjectsofstudyofthehighestmeritand themost thrilling interest. Iwould,however, recommend,asthe most profitable mode of following up the subject, more lengthenedexcursions; as, for instance, pedestrian tours through particular counties ordistricts, walking from village to village, and carefully sketching everythingworthyofnotetobefoundinit,whetherecclesiasticalordomestic.Thisshouldberepeatedoverandoveragainindifferentdistricts.Ifyouwishtodirectyourattention to the nobler productions of architecture, you must seat yourselvesdown in some cathedral town, and follow it up patiently from day to day, tillyourtimeisexhausted.Ahastyviewtothesenoblestofstructuresisofbutlittleuse.

EspeciallywouldIentreatyourattentiontothosebeauteousbutmelancholyruinswhichstillmarkthesitesofancientmonasticinstitutions.Youmayfindinthem the finest and best studied examples of your art—works designed andcarried out, not in the bustle and busy hum of cities, but under the quietinginfluenceoflearnedretirement:theyaretheworksofthemostthoughtfulspiritsof their age, andhave received theirutmost studyandconsideration.Notonlyaretheyintrinsicallyamongthemostbeautifulspecimensyoucanvisit,buttheirpresent condition is calculated to impress them the most deeply upon theimaginationandmemory.

It iswell to visit these remainsalone; to stay long at them; to study themthoroughly,andnottorepresstheemotionstowhichtheyarecalculatedtogiverise.Iwouldalsopleadforthemonanotherground.Therearemanyofthemfastmoulderingawayortotteringtotheirfall.Afewyearsmore,andmanyofthemwillhaveperished.Lend,then,afriendlyhandwhiletheystillexist,andrescuefromoblivion theirnobledetailsbymakingcareful andmeasureddrawingsofevery part; so that, when the reality is nomore, the truthful representation atleastwillbepreserved.

Ineedhardlysaythatnoworksofartcanbereallyprofitablystudiedwithout

drawingfromthem.Thememorywillnotretainitsimpressionsbymereabstractstudyandobservation. Iwouldnot advisehastyandcareless sketching,unlessyourtimeissoshortastorendermoreimpossible,butwouldurgeuponyouthenecessityofcarefullyandassiduouslydrawingwhateverstrikesyouasworthyofit, making measured drawings whenever you can, and noting down yourimpressionsastothemeritsorthedefectsofthework.Sostudywhatyouseeasthoroughlytolearnit,—asifnoonehadevermadedrawingsofitbefore.Neverbuyprintsorphotographsofitassubstitutesforyourownwork;thoughtheyaremostusefulwhenyouhavedoneallyoucanforyourself.Inthiswayyouwillina fewyearsobtainagoodknowledgeof thearchitectureofyourowncountry,and this is the best preparation for studying the contemporaryworks of otherlands.

Iwouldneverencourageastudenttogotooearlyabroad.Studywellourownexamplesfirst,andfollowupforeignoneslater.

Whenyougoabroad,beginwithFrance. It is thegreatcentreofMediævalart.PerhapsthebestcourseistotakeNormandyfirst,asbeingmostalliedtoourowncountry;butstillmore important is thedistrict roundParis—theoldroyaldomain—whichseems tobe theheart fromwhichGothicarchitecturediffuseditselfthroughoutEurope.Thearchitectureofthiscentraldistrict,particularlyinworksofthethirteenthcentury,demandstheclosestandthemostdiligentstudy;itisthegreatstandardandtypeofthestyle,and,withoutagoodknowledgeofit,yourstudieswouldbenotonlyincomplete,butdefectiveatthemostvitalpart.

AfterFrance,IwouldrecommendGermany.PointedarchitectureinGermanyisadirectemanationfromFrance,farmoresothanisthecasewiththatofourowncountry.Yetithasacharacterofitsownwhichitiswelltostudy,andthelater Romanesque of Germany, which is contemporarywith the early PointedarchitectureofFranceandEngland,isrepletewithbeautyandsuggestiveness.

ItalyshouldcomeafterFranceandGermany;andthestudyofitsMediævalworks is, in my opinion, necessary to the completeness of the course I amsuggesting.Itshould,however,beundertakenwithmuchcaution,withoutwhichit is apt to lead astray. I have above recommended you never to repress thegenerous impulses of enthusiasm; I fear, however, I must here make anexception to my rule. On first visiting Italy, the scenes are so new and soexciting, and the effects of the climate and the beauty of the atmosphere sointoxicating to the feelings, that we are apt to view everything through anexaggeratingmedium.Withoutrepressingnobleandgenerousemotions,Iwouldstillsuggestthatarigorouswatchshouldbekeptovertheundueeffectofmerelyexternalinfluences.“Putaknifetothythroatifthoubeamangiventoappetite.”

With proper safeguards, however, on this head, southernGothic is one of themost useful and delightful branches of the studies which lie before you, andsuppliesmanyahiatuswhichwouldotherwiseexist.

Ihope,however,onsomefutureoccasion, to saymoreon this subject.Forthepresent,IwillclosemyremarksonthemannerinwhichGothicarchitectureshouldbestudied,bysayingthatitisnotmerearchitecturewhichyouwillhaveto attend to: painted decoration, whether in its nobler or humbler branches,stained glass, illuminated manuscripts, sculpture, metal-work, jewellery,enamelling, seals, carved ivories, embroidery, and a hundred other subsidiarybranches,possessanalmostequalclaimuponyourattention;andmanyofthesemustbefollowedupinmuseumsandpubliclibraries,incollectionsofarchives,andinthesacristiesandtreasuriesofmonasteriesandcathedrals,where,forthemostpart,theyliehiddenandunknowntothebusyworldaround.NorwouldIleaveyoutosupposethattheobjectsofyourstudyshouldbeeitherexclusively,or even, perhaps, mainly, ecclesiastical. Youmust search out with the utmostdiligencetheremnantsofcivil,secular,anddomesticbuildingsofthesameages:withoutthisyourstudieswouldbeimperfectindeed!Thecapriceofindividualsand the love of living in new houses, have rendered these remains mostimperfectandfragmentary;yetthefragmentsarestrewnonallsidesofus,anddemandtobecarefullycollected,andnotavillageyoupasswillfail tosupplyyouwithsomecontribution.

Finally.Whatarethespecialobjectsforwhichthiscourseofstudyshouldbeundertaken?Theyare,Ithink,threefold.First. For the mere sake of acquainting ourselves with one of the most

remarkablephases in thewholehistoryof art, and thatwhichbelonged toourownrace,country,andreligion. It isoneof themoststrikingcharacteristicsofour day that in it alone, of all periods of the world’s history, the arts of allprecedingtimesarestudiedandtheirhistoryunderstood;andstrangewoulditbeif,while traversing every land to glean vestiges of its bygone arts,we shouldneglect to acquaintourselveswith thatnoble stylewhichprevailedamongourownforefathers,andwhosegloriousmonumentssurroundusoneveryside.

Thesecondobjectisoneofamorepracticalnature.Thesenoblemonuments,theprideandgloryofourland,have,throughthelapseoftimeandthebarbaroushandofmodernVandalism,becomeinmanycasessodecayedandmutilatedastodemandatourhandsthemostcarefulandjudiciousreparations.Thiscannotsafely be undertaken by any but those who have as perfect knowledge as ispossibleof their architecture, andwhoare able to traceoutwithprecision thehistoryandchangestheyhaveundergone,andwhosefeelingsaresuchastolead

themtodealtenderlyandlovinglywiththem.ThisaloneisasufficientobjecttoinduceacarefulstudyofourMediævalarchitecture.

Thereremains,however,athirdobjecttoleadustothisstudy,butitisoneonwhich somuch difference of opinion exists, that I must avoid on the presentoccasiondoingmorethannamingit.Irefer,ofcourse,totherevivalofPointedarchitecturenowgoingon.Thepromotersofthisgreatmovementdonotdesiretoreviveadepartedart,howeverglorious,exactlyastheyfinditinitsoriginalremains.Suchmaynaturallybe thecharacterof their first essays,but it isnottheirultimatewish.Theirviewisratherthis:that,feelingdeeplythefactthatwehavelongsinceceasedtopossessanarchitecturewhichcanbesaidtobelongtoour race or our age, and fully agreeing with those who desire to see a newdevelopmentofourarttomeetthesedemands,theyfeelthatthemostprobablefoundationforsuchadevelopmentisthenativearchitectureofourownraceandcountry, and that the thorough study of its principles may tend in time topromote the formation of an architecture of the future, which will be morethoroughly our own than that, however meritorious, which has been foundedupontraditionsoftheancientworld.

LECTUREII.

SketchoftheRiseofMediævalArchitecture.

AnomalousstateofthingsinWesternEuropeafterthedestructionoftheRomanEmpire—Artalmostextinct—Saved by theWestern Church and the Eastern Empire—Architectural elements of the new races—Charlemagne’sattemptstoreviveart—PrimitiveartinEnglandandthenorthofFrance—Dawnofbetterthings—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 thetrabeatedsystems—DevelopmentofRomanesque—Itsleadingcharacteristics—RomanesqueandPointedarchitecture not TWO styles, but ONE—Barrel vaults—Groined vaults—Oblong bays—Main arches ofgroinedvaultingchangedfromthesemicircle to thepointedarch—Flyingbuttresses—Groinribs—Thepointedarcharosefromstaticalnotgeometricaloræstheticalmotives—Wallribsremainroundlongafterthewiderarchesbecomepointed—Twomodesadopted toavoid thedifficultyofoblonggroiningovernaves—Sexpartitevaulting.

INthe introductory lecturewhich Ihad thehonourof readingbeforeyou lastyear, I endeavoured to give an outline of the varied claims of the architecturewhichwasdevelopedinourownandneighbouringcountriesduringtheMiddleAges,uponthestudybothofarchitectsandloversofartatthepresentday.

IwillnotrecapitulatewhatIthensaid;but,presumingthatbyhonouringmewithyourpresencethiseveningyouadmitthesubjecttobewellworthyofyourattention,willcraveyourindulgencewhileIendeavour,attheriskofappearingtobegoingoveratriteandalmostexhaustedsubject,togiveabriefoutlineofthe rise and development of the architecture whose claims upon your study Ithenattemptedtoadvocate.

Myobject is rather to traceout the re-awakeningofart in theeleventhandfollowing centuries from the slumber in which it had so long lain, than tochronicle its changes during the chaotic ages which followed the finalcatastrophe of the ancient world. Like the contemporary fable of the SevenSleepers at Ephesus, its changes during this dreamy interval were but theturningsoftheslumbererfromtherightsidetotheleft,andlittleneedistheretoinvestigate such sluggish and disconnectedmovements. Our concern is ratherwith living and energetic art; and if we stop at all to inquire into its semi-dormantcondition,itisratherforthesakeofjudgingwhatweretheelementsoflifewhichitretained,thanfromanyreallypracticalinterestwhichattachestoitsproductions.

ItishardlypossibletoconceiveofastateofthingssoutterlyanomalousandcontrarytoallhistoricalprecedentasthatofWesternEuropeafterthedelugeofNorthernbarbarismhadannihilatedthemightiestempiretheworldeversaw,andalmostsweptfromthefaceoftheearththeartsandliteraturewhichithadtakenthe whole period of human history to generate. Like the giant-slayers of oldromance, the barbarous conquerors must have been filled with awe incontemplatingthestupendousproportionsoftheirnowlifelessvictim;andwhile

wandering amidst themightymonuments of the people they had overthrown,theymusthavebeen inspiredwithdeepvenerationfor their intellectualpower,and with ardent longings to inherit some portion of their skill—aspirationswhich,ifwemayjudgefromsomeofthestructureserectedbyTheodoric,therecanbelittledoubtwouldhavebeenrealisedhadnoteverywaveasitsubsidedbeensucceededbyafreshtorrentofbarbarism.Thelampofartwasonlysavedfromutterextinctionbytwosurvivinginstitutions—theWesternChurchandtheEasternEmpire;theoneseemingtoabsorbeachsucceedingwaveofconqueringbarbarism, and the other to supply to each those elements of civilisation bywhichitsfurywasinitsturntobeabated.

As might be expected from the circumstances of their position, thearchitectural effortsof thenew raceswere foundedon thebasisof theRomanmonuments,withwhosevestigestheywereoneveryhandsurrounded,aidedbyfriendlyandcontinuousimportationsofthestilllivingartoftheEasternEmpire.Their elementswere theChristianisedRomanof theWesternBasilica, and thenewly-developed architecture of the Byzantine Church. Long, long, however,was it before any distinctive style was developed out of these elements. TheeffortsofTheodoricmustbeconsideredasratherByzantinethanGothic;andforthreecenturiessolittle,ifany,wastheprogress,thatwefindCharlemagne,there-founderoftheempire,actuallydespoilingthepalaceoftheearlyGothickingtouseitsarchitecturalfragmentsinhisownstructures!

Therecanbenodoubt,however, that theeffortsmadebyCharlemagne forthe revival of art would have soon produced some great results had he beenfollowedby successors in anydegreeworthyofhim;but so far from this, thenationshegovernedseemtohavefallenbackintoalmostworsebarbarismthanbefore, while the incursion of Northmen, Huns, and Saracens long repressedeveryeffortafterbetterthings.Weknowlittleoftheactualstateofarchitectureduring this melancholy period. The notion of Charlemagne having found adistinctive style of architecture inLombardy, andhaving transplanted it to thebanksof theRhine, seems tobe littlemore than amyth, though I think it notimprobable that the Lombards had already taken some steps towards theformationofanewstyle.[2]

It is dubiouswhether a fragment of the structures erected by the Lombardkings nowexists fromwhichwemay ascertain their style;[3], and though it ispossible that thesubsequentarchitecturemayhavebeen influencedby theminsome degree, it is certain that the models which the Frankish emperor moreespecially followedwere rather found inByzantineRavenna than inbarbarousLombardy, and the few remains of his architecture seem to be imitations of

eitherClassicorByzantinestructures.In England the works of this period were a very rude and unintelligible

imitationofthoseofthesameperiodatRome,unitedwithastrangetranslationinto stone of their own timber structures, and occasionally enrichedwith thatprimitivekindofornamentationwhichitiscustomarytocallRunic.[4]

InthenorthofFranceitwouldnotappearthatthehumblerclassofchurchesweremuchbetterthanthoseofwhichwefindtheremainsinourowncountry.The remnants of one of the churches erected at that period on the site nowoccupiedbyNôtreDameatParis,aredebasedRomanwithCorinthiancapitals;butthefewremainsofsmallerchurches—suchastheoldchurchatBeauvais—arenotveryunliketheSaxonstructuresinEngland.Ofthelatteritisbutfairtostate that the fragments which remain nearly all belong to merely rusticchurches, and are hardly fair specimens of their style; they afford, however,sufficient proof of the rude state of art, though we have the witness ofcontemporaryandsucceedinghistorianstothefactthattheyweresupposedandintendedtobeintheRomanstyle—meaningthereby,notthatofancientRome,but thatwhich prevailed at the period, andwhichwe usually designate as theBasilicanstyle.

Thedawnofbetterthingsmaybedatedfromthecommencementofthetenthcentury,andmaybemainlyattributedtotheconsolidationoftheGermanempireunderthethreefirstOthos(936-1002)andtheirimmediatesuccessors,andmoreespecially to the fact of these emperors having had Lombardy equally withGermany, Switzerland, and portions of France under their sway, and thus insomedegreeunitinginonethatvastexpanseofcountrywhichextendsfromthebanksofthePotothoseoftheElbe.

ThoughCharlemagnehadbeenthefirsttoestablishthismightyempire,andthat on a yet grander scale, andmay claim the title of the founder ofmoderncivilisation,theseedshehadsownscarcelybegantotakeroottillthedaysofhisGermansuccessorsofthetenthandeleventhcenturies.IsayGermansuccessors,becausethekingsofFrancewerehissuccessorsasFrankishkings,theothersasGerman emperors; and from this time forward we find a sort of contest orcompetition ever going on, both in politics and arts, between those whorepresentedhiminthosetwocapacities.

From the commencement of the tenth century we find one style ofarchitecture for a time spreading over the plains of Lombardy, the valleys ofSwitzerland,andthatoftheRhine,andextendingitselfoverSaxonyandallthecivilisedpartsofGermany.

Idonotsaythatthestylewasabsolutelyidentical;butstillitwasessentially

the same. It was promoted by the same all-pervading political influence; andtherecanbenodoubtthatthesameecclesiastics,andeventhesameartists,wereengaged in carrying it out; and that even among thosemost remote from oneanother a constant interchange of views as to taste and constructionwas evergoingon,whilethedifferenceswhichweobservewouldariseratherfromthoseof climate,material, and proximity to the relics of ancient art, than from anyessentialorintendeddifferenceofstyle.

Theforceoftheinfluencebroughttobearatthisperioduponthefurtheranceof artmay be judged of from the accountswe have of the schools of art andscience established so far north as Hildesheim (in the neighbourhood ofBrunswickandHanover),byBernward,Bishopof that see, at thecloseof thetenthandthecommencementof theeleventhcentury.Bernwardwas tutor,andafterwardschancellor,toOthoIII.,andthereareextantportionsofanelaboratetreatise on geometry from which he instructed that prince. He was himselfskilled in many arts, as wall-painting, the illumination of MSS., mosaics,workinginmetals,cuttingandsettingpreciousstones,aswellasinarchitectureitself;and it is said that“wheneverhe foundayouthwitha feeling forart,hetook him into his laboratory, and instructed himwith the greatest kindness ingivingtherequiredformstostubbornmetals,hardstone,wood,andivory.Themost artistic of these youngmen he always tookwith himwhen he travelled,especiallywhenhewent to Italy, that their tastemightbe improvedby seeingmasterlyworksofart,andhencebeenabledtoexecutesimilarworksathome.”Bernward rebuilt his cathedral and erected the church of St. Michael atHildesheim(stillexisting);andofhisworksinmetalthereremainthegatesandthespiralcolumn(ofwhichcastsmaybeseenattheCrystalPalace),aswellasthe great corona, in the cathedral. I havedwelt the longer on these particularsbecausewehappentohavemorecompleterecordsofBernwardthanofmostofhiscontemporariesinart,andbecausethesphereofhisoperationswasatapointsodistantfromtherecognisedcentresofart;andwhenit isrecollectedthathewascotemporarywiththeerectionofmanyofthegreatRomanesquecathedralsof Germany—as Mayence, Spire, and Bamberg, and of multitudes of lessimportant churches (at the dedication ofmany of which he was present), andfurther,thathelivedearlierthantheerectionoftheCathedralofPisa,theChurchofSt.MarkatVenice,orSt.ZenoatVerona—itwillbeseenatoncehowearlyandenergeticwasthearchitecturalmovementinGermanyunderthoseemperorswho were also kings of Italy; and we need not wonder at the immense holdwhichthearchitecture,thusgenerated,hadoverthenationalmindofGermany.

It isprobablethatabout thesameperiodastylesomewhatanalogoustothe

Lombardo-Rhenish, though more strongly tinctured with Classic detail, wasgrowingup inProvenceand theothersouthernprovincesofFrance, spreadingitself northward, and thus meeting the German variety on the borders ofSwitzerlandandinBurgundy.Thedates,however,ofbuildingsinthosedistrictsseemtooindefinitetobeargueduponwithconfidence,thoughitiscertainthatatadatesomewhatlateraverynobleandrefinedvarietyofRomanesque,butwithastrongClassicadmixture,prevailedthere.

AboutthesametimethedevelopmentofadistinctivestylewaspromotedintheNorthbyanapparentlyadversecause.TheNorthmen,underRollo,havingravaged and possessed themselves of an extensive province in the north ofFrance,andhavingsoonafterwardsjoinedtheChristianChurch,setthemselvesvigorouslyabout the taskof repairing the sacrilegewhich, in thedaysof theirignorance, theyhadcommitted:nearlyeveryecclesiasticaledifice in theirnewdominions had been destroyed, and never, perhaps, had a new and vigorouspeopleamoreperfectcarteblancheforgeneratinganewphaseofarchitecture.Weaccordinglyfindthattheysooncoveredtheirlandwithedifices;atfirst,itistrue, rude and simple,[5] but subsequently possessing elements of dignity andmassivegrandeurofaveryhighorder.

Of thecentraldistrictof theFrankishmonarchyat thisperiodwehave fewarchitecturalrelics.TheweaknessoftheCarlovingianmonarchs,andthealmostentiredismembermentoftheirdominions,leftthem,probably,littleabletocarryout greatworks; yet it cannot be doubted that the active genius of the race—surrounded as they were by the Romanesque developments of Lombardy,Provence,Rhineland, andNormandy—could not have failed to haveproducedworksfullyproportionedinmerittothoseoftheirneighbours,thoughduringtheperiodofsubsequentgreatnesstheywerenotdeemedworthytoberetained.

We now arrive at the period at which the real subject of which I haveundertakentotreatcommences;anditmayherebewelltogiveafewmoments’considerationtotheintrinsicnatureoftheartatthistimebeinggenerated.

The early architectureofRome,—locallyoccupying apositionbetween theGreekcoloniestothesouthandtheEtruscancitiestothenorth,—partook,asitwould seem probable, of the characteristics of both, andwasmore especiallymarkedby theunionof theGreekordersand their trabeatedstructurewith thearched construction shadowed forth by the buildings of Etruria. The wholehistory of Roman architecture seems to evince a competition ever going onbetweentheserivalsystems.Itwasatfirstanunequalcontest,for thearcuatedsystem had never, when first taken up by the Romans, had the advantage ofbeing treated as the vehicle for architectural decoration—it was as yetmere

construction;while the trabeatedsystemhadpassed througha refiningprocessof two thousand years’ duration, and had been brought by the Greeks to thehighestpitchofbeautyandperfection.TheRomanstructuresdisplayeverystepinthiscontest,someoftheirgreateststructuresbeingpurelyarcuatedandmerelyconstructive, others as purely trabeated—mere imitations of Grecianarchitecture;but themajorityunitingboth indifferentproportions, theGrecianelement being very commonly littlemore than a decorative overlaying of thearched reality. As time moved on, the arched construction steadily gainedground:notonlywereopeningsarchedover,butwidespacesvaultedbothwithdomes, continuous cylindrical vaults, and those of the groined or intersectingform.

DuringthelateragesofPaganRome,thougharchitectureasadecorativeartwas on thewane, the triumph of arched construction becamemore andmorecomplete. Columns hitherto used to support horizontal entablatures wereemployed directly to carry arches, the architrave being bent into a semicircleinstead of lying horizontally upon the column; while spaces of gigantic spanwere covered with groined vaulting, some reaching to a width never sinceattempted.

In theEastern empire thedomebecame subsequently the favourite formofvault,though,ineachdivisionoftheempire,thearchingoverentirebuildingsinallitsbrancheswaspractisedwiththegreatestskillandsuccess.

During the dark interval which followed the Gothic invasions, thoughconstructive skillwas immensely reduced, the preponderanceof arcuatedovertrabeated architecture became yet more complete. The Greek element havingduringthelaterRomanperiodbecomemerelydecorative,andthereforenomorethan an artificial adjunct, it was natural that the overthrow of the ancientcivilisationshouldatoncesweep it awayasauseless luxury,and that the realandusefulportionsofarchitectureshouldalonesurvive,thoughtheactualskillinusingthemwouldbereduced.Wefind,accordingly,thatduringthisintervalarchitecture became purely arcuated, though in Western Europe the moredifficult forms of arcuation, such as the vaulting over of large spaces, wereusually avoided. This art, however, was never forgotten nor lost, but simplydisusedfromdiminutionofskill,andthegrandcharacteristicofthereawakeningofarchitecturewastherevivalofthesemoredifficultsystemsofconstruction;somuch so, indeed, that nearly every structural changewhichwe trace from thetenth to the thirteenth century arose,more or less, from the endeavour first toreviveand then tocarryon tohigherandhigherperfection theconstructionofarches and vaulting, and to elevate it frommere construction into the highest

place among the means of producing beauty of decoration and sublimity ofeffect.

In the south of Italy the architecture continued all along to follow, in themain,thecharacteroftheRomanBasilica;andforalongperiod,itisprobable,asIhavebeforestated,thatmostoftheNorthernchurcheswererudeimitationsof this type; but gradually, in the countries north of thePo, a new formcameover the architecture, which ever after distinguishedNorthern from Southernbuildings,andwhichmaybedesignatedbythefamilynameofGOTHIC,notonlyasbeingtheprogenitorofthestylewhichhasgenerallyreceivedthattitle,butasbeingactually inagreatdegree thestyleof thenationsofGothicextractionasdistinguishedfromthoseofRomanparentage.ThisstylehasgenerallyreceivedthenameofRomanesque,orRomane,todistinguishitfromthepointed-archedstylewhichsucceededit,but isbyMr.Fergussonmorephilosophically termedthe round-arched Gothic, while he transfers the term Romanesque to theChristianisedRomanorBasilicanstyle.This is farmorecorrect than theusualnomenclature;butasthelatterisestablishedbycustomIshallnotdepartfromit,but shall, for convenience, designate this round-arched Gothic style—asdistinguished from the Christian Roman and from the Pointed style—by thecustomarynameofRomanesque.

Ofthisstylethefollowingmaybeenumeratedastheleadingcharacteristics:—

1.Subordinationofthearches.2.Subdivisionofpierstomeetthesubordinationofarches.3.Introductionofsystemsofmouldinganddecorationpropertosubdivided

arches.4.Theuseofshaftsorcolonettesasmeansofdecorationandaccentuation.5.TheentirerelinquishmentofClassicproportionsinthecolumns,whichare

henceforthproportionedinthicknesstotheirload,irrespectiveoftheirheight.6.Asystemofdecorationofitsown,foundedonRomanandByzantine,but

workedup intoanewcharacter,moreor less independentof theoriginal type,according to the locality, and to its removal from or proximity to antiquemonuments.

7. Great thickness of walls to resist the thrust of vaulting, aided by flat,pilaster-likebuttressesintheprincipalplanesofpressure.

8.Inmanycases—indeed,asageneralrule—anairofgiganticmassivenessintheentireconstruction.

9. The vaulting at first exactly accords with that of Roman buildings,

embracing the barrel vault, the groined vault, and the dome, in nearly all thehithertoattainedvarieties.Thearchesalwayseithersemicircularorsegmental.

The above characteristics are chiefly of a mechanical nature. The stylepossesses,however,sentimentsofaninfinitelynoblerkindthananythingwhichthesemerematerialelementscouldimpart.Itpossessesasternnessanddignityalmostunearthly—amajesticseverityofsentimentwhichseems,asitwere,asifintended to rebuke theunpityingbarbarityof the age, and to awe its rude andlawless spirits into obedience to the precepts of the Divine law. Its aspect isreligious to the utmost extreme; but it expresses the stern uncompromisingseverity of religion rather than itsmorewinning and elevating attributes—theasceticism of St. John the Baptist, the rebuker of sin and the preacher ofrepentance and of righteousness, rather than the spirituality of St. John theEvangelist, thepreacherofChristian love,devotion,andpraise.Thesentimentthey would express seems not so much “Worship the Lord in the beauty ofholiness,”as“FearbeforeHim,alltheearth;”andthetasktheyprescribetotheirministers toberather toproclaim“thedayofvengeance” than“theacceptableyear of the Lord”—less to “bind up the broken-hearted and comfort all thatmourn,” than to “lift up their voice like a trumpet, and show the people theirtransgressions.”

This stern simplicity is not, however, universal, for from the first theRomanesquearchitectsoccasionallyindulgedinevenrichornamentation,and,ata later date, often carried it to profusion; yet, even in the richest decorations,theycontinuedgraveandsevere—theirlineswerehardandprecise,theirfoliagestrongandharsh,andtheirfiguresculpture(unlessintendedtobegrotesque)wastheveryimageofsternness—rudeinart,butoftenofgreatdignityofexpression;andthoughinanagelikeours,oftechnicalperfectionandflippantcriticism,itoften provokes a smile, it was, in its own simple and untechnical age, wellcalculatedtoproducewholesomeandsolemnizingimpressions.

Thisis thestyleofwhichweshouldfirst treatwhenattemptingtotracethehistoryofMediævalarchitecture.ItisamistaketoimaginePointedarchitecturetobe severedbyagreatgulf from theRomanesque—thePointedGothic fromtheRound:itisitslegitimateoffspring,orratheritselfinamoreadvancedstageof its development. The change from the round-arched to the pointed-archedGothic is no change of essential principles; it is but the carrying on to theirinevitable results of the principles of refinement, purification, elevation, theperfecting of the construction, and the softening down of the asperity ofexpression,whichweregoingonduring thewholeof theRomanesqueperiod.NearlyeverycharacteristicofPointedarchitecturefindsitstype,oritsperfected

model,intheRomanesque.Theyarenottwostyles,butone—theearlierandthelater phases of the same architecture; the latter being only the carrying on toperfectionoftheprogressionwhichhad,duringeverymomentofitsdominion,andineveryprovinceofitsempire,beenuniformlygoingonintheformer.

ThoughtherefiningprocesswentunceasinglyonduringthewholehistoryofRomanesque architecture and affected all its features, itwould appear that theconstantendeavours tobring toperfection itsvarioussystemsofvaultingwereamongthegreatestcausesofthechangefromtheRoundtothePointedstyle,Iwill,therefore,endeavourtogiveaconciseoutlineofthechangesinthisbranchofconstructionduringtheperiodunderconsideration.

ThechurchesofWesternEuropeuptothistime,liketheearlybasilicas,wereforthemostpartcoveredwithtimberroofs;andthetaskwhichtheRomanesquebuildersproposedtothemselveswastoconvertthemintovaultedchurches.

Themostnormalandreadilyinventedvaultisthatofthecontinuousbarrelordemi-cylindrical form, covering an oblong building from end to end, and themost readily conceived idea,where the building has to be roofed over such avault, is tofill in thespacebetweenthearchandthe triangleof theroofsolid,andmakeitatoncetheceilingoftheroomandthesupportoftheroofcovering.Such a vault, however, has considerable outward thrust, and, being heavilyloadedat thecrown,would requirewallsofgreat thickness tostandagainst it.Letussupposeitappliedtothenaveofabasilicainplaceofthetimberroof,andit isobvious that,beingbalancedontworangesofcolumns, itcouldnotstandforamomentwithoutsomeveryeffectivecontrivanceintheconstructionoftheaislestobuttressupthewallsandpillarsonwhichthisbarrelvaultistorest.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.1.

IntheBathsofDiocletian,theBasilicaofMaxentius,andothergreatRomanhalls,thiswasmetbycrosswallspiercedonlybysmallarchways,andplacedatintervals, dividing the aisles into chambers, each of which was covered by ashort barrel vault at right angles to that over the central space (Fig. 1). This,however,wouldbeinconsistentwiththeusesofachurch,and,indeed,appliestoa groined rather than a barrel vault, though a very similar expedient wassometimesusedbytheRomanesquebuilders,bycoveringtheaisleswithcrossbarrel vaults, as those above described, supported by arches across the aisles,insteadofbycrosswalls(Fig.2).Anothersystemwas tocover theaislesbyahalf or little more than a half longitudinal barrel roof, forming a continuousarched buttress to the continuous central vault (Fig. 3). This gave them aperfectly vaulted building of trustworthy construction, provided only that theaisle walls were of sufficient strength. The barrel vaults were often bothstrengthenedandtheirmonotonyrelievedbyarchedribsaddedtotheirthicknessovereachpillarofthenave,andrepeatedovertheaisles,whiletheseplanesofextra strengthwere carried through to the exterior in the formofbuttressesofsmallprojectionagainsttheaislewalls(Fig.4).

[Imageunavailable]

Fig.2. Fig.3.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.4.

Thebuildersofsuchchurcheswerenot,however, ignorantof theprinciplesofthegroinedorintersectingvaultformedbytheinter-penetrationoftwodemi-cylinders, and so largely used by theRomans.They did not use them in suchbuildings,becausetheirmainvaultrisingintotheroof,theycouldnot,underthesame roof-plane, introduce the intersecting vaults,—though this had beeneffectedinRomanstructuresbyaseriesofcrossgablesoverthecrossvaults.Inchurchesof thesamekind,however,we find thegroinedvaultused tocarryagalleryintheaisles,alltherestremainingasbefore(Fig.5).

[Imageunavailable]Fig.5.

Itwouldappear that theobviousmechanicaladvantages itoffered ledatanearly period, in the south of France, to the substitution of the pointed for theroundarchinthegreatvaultofchurchesofthisconstruction;butIwillsupposeforthepresentthesemicircletobestrictlyadheredto.ThegreatdefectinsuchachurchasIamsupposingwouldbewantoflightinthenavefromtheabsenceofclerestorywindows;andassuchwindowshadbeeninusefromthedaysoftheearliestbasilicas,thislosswouldbefullyappreciated.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.6.

Thefirstideaforobviatingitwastolowerthespringingofthevaultforthesakeofbringing the thrust tobearuponaportionof thewallmorecapableofresistingit,and,byraisingthenaverelativelytoitsaisles,toobtainspaceforarangeof smallwindowsbetween the roofof theaisleand the springingof themainvault (Fig.6).This, however,was amost unsatisfactory arrangement—itcompromisedthesecurityofthestructure,andgainedbutaverymiserablerangeoflights.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.7.

This difficulty led to the somewhat unpalatable measure of lowering thespringingofthemainvaultsomuchastobringitscrownbelowthelevelofthewalls,andtoconvert itfromabarrel intoagroinedvault.Thespringingbeingthen level with the impinging line of the aisle roofs, a good abutment wasobtained, while the cross vaults afforded ample space for clerestory windows(Fig.7).Icalledthisanunpalatableexpedientfortworeasons:—Ist,Becauseitinvolved the lossof theentireheightof the roof as apartof the interior; and,secondly,becauseitledtotherelinquishmentoftheincombustibleconstruction,byrenderingitimpossibletomakethevaultingtoformtheactualroof,andtheconsequentnecessityforatimberroofaboveit.InaNorthernclimate,however,thiswasnotanunmitigatedloss,foravaultimmediatelyundertheroof-coveringisalwaysdamp,andextremelydifficultofrepair;andweshallseethatthelossof height was soon compensated for by a subsequent invention, while thesubstitution of a groined for a barrel vault not only introduced a beautiful inplaceofacomparativelydullform,butdidawaywiththeillogicalcharacteristicofacontinuousvaultsupportedbydetachedpillars;theloadbeingnowcollectedtogether into points immediately over its supports. The same cause wouldnaturally lead to the abandonment of the half-barrel vaulting of the aisles, theneedofabutmentbeingnownotcontinuous,but indetachedpoints.Theaisleswereconsequentlycoveredwithgroinedvaults,acrosswallbeingraisedupontheir transverse arches, or arcs-doubleaux, which served as buttresses to themainvault,orwouldevencarryexternalbuttressesagainst theclerestorywall.Theblankwallinthenave,causedbythespacebetweenthegroiningandroofofthe aisles, was subsequently occupied by a gallery, so well known as the“triforium.”

[Imageunavailable]Fig.8. Fig.9.

A difficulty here presented itself, which I must state before proceedingfurther,asmuchstresshadbeenlaiduponit,anditunquestionablyexercisedastronginfluenceuponthesubsequentarrangements.Itisthis:thesimplegroinedvault being formed by the intersection of demi-cylinders, demanded that thespacecoveredbyitshouldbedividedintoperfectsquares.Now,theaislesofachurchbeingusuallyabouthalfthewidthofthenave,itfollowsthatthegroiningofbothcannotbesquare. If thoseof theaislesare so, thoseof themainvaultmustbeabout twiceaswideas theyare long(Fig.8);while if thesearemadesquare, thoseof theaisleswillbe twiceas longas theyarewide (Fig.9).Thefirst alternative was that most usually adopted north of the Alps, though thesecondwasmorefrequentinItaly.Thedifficultywashowtogrointheseoblongbays.Itwasnot,however,anewdifficulty;ithadoccurredinRomanstructures,where it was met by the simple expedient of raising the springing of thenarrowervaultsohigh,thatitscrownwaslevelwiththatofthewiderone.Thisanswered the purpose, but it produced a most unpleasant line of intersection,reducingthevault,infact,foraportionofitsheight,toamerestripofthearc-doubleau,andgivingawinding intersectionfor theremainderof theheight,astwocylindersofunequaldiameterdonotintersectinaplane.Themathematicalsolution of the problemwould have been tomake the section of the narrowervault,anuprightsemi-ellipse;butthisdoesnotappeartohavebeenatanyperiodadopted, or, if at all, in exceptional cases only. The pointed archwould havebeenanapproximateexpedient, and its introductionhasbeenvery ingeniouslyattributedtothisdifficulty,—atheorytowhichIshallhaveagaintoallude.

Another solution of itwould be tomake all the arches semi-circles, but toraise up the crown of the vaults of a smaller diameter in a curve tomeet theothers, thusmaking it (roughly speaking) a portionof anannulus insteadof acylinder.

Thishadonegreatdisadvantage:thatitcutoffaconsiderableportionofthespacefortheclerestorywindows;or,ifthelevelofthemainvaultwasraisedtoobviate this, it became impossible to have a tiebeam to the roof. The systemactuallyadoptedinmostinstanceswouldappeartohavebeenaunionofthatlastnamed with the Roman mode of stilting the narrow vaults, the difference ofheightbeingmadeuppartlybyraisingitsspringing,andpartlybyelevatingthecrown(Fig.10).

[Imageunavailable]Fig.10.

While theseperplexities, however,wereunder consideration, several othersarose, every one of which led to the introduction of features essential to theperfectingbothofthestyleandconstruction.Thefirstwasthedesiretoelevatethecentralvaulttoahigherlevel,bothforthesakeofcompensatingforthelosssustainedwhenitwasbroughtdownbelowtheroof,andalsotoobtainagreaterspace for the clerestory windows. This involved, again, the difficulty as toabutment, through its raising the springing of the vault above the roof of theaisles.Wehaveseen that,wherereducedtoasimilardifficultywith thebarrelvault,thearchitectsofthesouthofFrancehadatanearlierperiodresortedtothepointed vault as having less outward thrust: the same expedientwas now hadrecoursetoforgroinedvaulting,themainarchesofwhichwerenow—towardsthemiddleof the twelfth century—changed from the semicircle to thepointedarch.When the elevation of the clerestory above the aisleswas butmoderate,thiswasoftenfoundsufficient;buttheconstructionwasprecarious,andinmanyinstancesfailed,andamoreperfectmodeofmeetingthecasewasrequired.

Whatwasdemandedwas thepower toelevate theclerestorywith themainvaulttoanyreasonableheightabovetheaisle,withoutendangeringthestabilityofthestructure.

Here the recollection of an earlier expedient came to the rescue. Itwill berememberedthattheearlybarrelvaultswerebuttressedbyhalfbarrelvaultsovertheaisles,thusdoingawaywiththeclerestory.Acontinuousvaultdemandedacontinuousabutment;but,nowthatthepressurewasconcentratedintodetachedplanes,itbecamesufficientthattheabutmentalsoshouldbeinthoseplanes;andthough the continuous semi-vault would do away with clerestory windows,detached semi-arches would have no such effect. The thought accordinglyoccurred of erecting the arc-doubleau of the old semi-vault in open air as abuttresstothemainvaultofthegroinedchurch;andhencethatmuch-admired,and,ofcourse,alsomuch-depreciatedfeature—theflyingbuttress.Thepressurebeingconcentrateduponpoints,itbecamealsonecessarytofortifythosepointsbyattachedbuttressesofconsiderableprojection,suchaswehenceforthfindtohavebecomealeadingexternalcharacteristicofMediævalstructures.Thewall,in fact (where the system was carried to its extreme limits), became a merecurtain, needed rather for enclosure than for strength, and capable of beingpierced with windows to any required extent; a liberty which thecontemporaneousdevelopmentofstainedglasscausedtobeunhesitatinglytaken

advantageof.Imust, however, return to thevaulting, havingoversteppedmychronology

bynotyetnoticinganothermostimportantinvention.Imeantheintroductionofgroin-ribs—those narrow arches erected under the lines of intersection of thevaults. The early groins had no ribs excepting the transverse ones, or arcs-doubleaux; the edges at which the vaults cut one another were left bare, andwere the weakest parts of the construction; often but faintlymarked, and notnecessarily lying in planes. Inmore complicated vaults, such as now becamenecessary, this system could scarcely be continued; and the introduction of astone rib,underevery intersection,maybeviewedas thecrowning fact in thedevelopmentofvaulting.

Itisimpossibletolaytoomuchstressuponitsimportance,foritchangedtheentire geometrical system. Up to that time the construction of groining waswhollygovernedby the formsof thevaultingsurfaces; the intersectionsbeingallowedtotaketheirchance,andtopresentanyirregularityoffigure,whilethewide surfaces of vaulting were apparently carried onmere pins’ points at thespringing—correct enough as a mathematical figure, but ill calculated forstrength.Now, however, the intersecting lines assumed the government of theconstruction, and the form of the surface wasmade to accommodate itself tothem.Theywere always inplanes,[6] and always true figures—usually arcs ofcircles;butthepanelsofvaultingbecameoftenirregularintheirconfiguration,andcouldbetwistedtomeetcontingentrequirementswithoutoffendingtheeye;while the ribs, all meeting in a solid springer at the foot, brought down thepressure,anddepositeditfirmlyuponthepointsofsupport.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.11.

ItwillbeseenfromtheabovethatthepointedarchwasnotintroducedintoMediæval structures frommere caprice—merely from seeing it elsewhere andtaking a fancy to its form,—but from the necessities of construction, from itsincreasedstrengthanddiminished thrust. Itwasat firstused for themainarchonlyofthegreatervault.Thesamereasonsoonledtoitsintroductionwherevergreatweightwastobecarried,asundertowers,etc.;butforallsmallarchesthesemicirclewaslongretained.Ihavealludedto theverybeautiful theorythat itwas introduced for the side arches of oblong groins, simply as a means ofobtainingarchesofequalheightwithonlyhalfthespanwiththoseofthemainvault.Trueitis,that,atalaterdate,itbecamemostusefulforthispurpose.Butacareful studyof themonuments inwhich it is first systematically used clearlyshowsthatitsintroductionwasfromstatical,andneithergeometricalnormerelyæstheticalmotives; for in the faceof that theorywe find thenarrower archorwall-ribremainingroundlongafterthewiderarchhadbecomepointed(Fig.11).SuchisthecaseinnearlyalltheearlieroftheFrenchtransitionalchurches,asatNoyonandatSt.GermaindesPres,andweseethesameatCanterbury.Inmostof these buildings the narrow arch is stilted and the crown of the cross vaultraised up as before described, thus losing a part of the clerestory wall, adisadvantage obviated when the pointed arch became more franklyacknowledged.

Although, however, the pointed arch was actually adopted from simplenecessities of construction, its advantages in all points of view soon becameapparent.Inanessentiallyarcuatedstyleitbecomesnecessarynotonlytohavethecommandofaformofarchcapableofcarryingthegreatestweightsandofrequiring the leastabutment,but it isessential tohaveatcommandanarchofvariableproportions.Itcarriesabsurdityontheveryfaceofitthat,whileabletogiveourpiersagreateroralessdegreeofheightatpleasureweshouldhavenosuch power over the arch they sustain; not tomention the numerous cases inwhichwehavetobringtogetherarchesofunequalspan,andwhichneverthelessdemand an equal height. The rules of harmony imperatively demand that thearch should be equally capable ofmodification in its proportions of height towidth,withallotherfeaturesofthearchitecture.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.12.

In the above outline of the history of vaulting I have, for the sake ofsimplicity,omittedtwomodesactuallyadoptedtoavoidthedifficultyofoblonggroining over naves. The first, which was common in German round-archedchurches,wastomakethevaultingofthenavesimplytocomprisetwobaysofthe aisles, thus bringing themain vault equally into squareswith those of theaisles. The second was the use of what Dr. Whewell has entitled sexpartitevaulting,andwhichiscommonbothinFrance,Germany,andEngland(Fig.12).Itadopts thesystem lastnamed,but subdivides thedoublebaybya triangularslipofvaulting (Figs.13,14).The real solution arose, however, from the freeand simple use of the pointed arch, which gave the result which is seen atWestminster[7]andinnearlyallthevaultedchurchesofthethirteenthcentury—thesimplegroinedvaultwitharchesofequalheight,thoughthesidearchesaresometimes stilted, not from necessity, but merely to afford greater space forclerestorywindows.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.13.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.14.

OnthisplainandpracticalresultM.ViolletleDuc(ofwhoseadmirableessayon vaulting, together with those of Dr.Whewell and ProfessorWillis, I havemadefreeuse)makesthefollowingstrikingremarks:—

“Ithadrequiredfiftyyearsforthearchitectsoftheendofthetwelfthcenturytoarrive, fromthestillRomanesquevaultsofAutunandVezelay,at thisgreatresult; and from thismoment the entire construction of religious edificeswasderivedfromthedispositionofthevaults;theformanddimensionofthepillars—theirspacing;thewindow-openings—theirwidthandheight;thepositionanddirectionof thebuttresses—the importanceof theirpinnacler; the strength, thenumber, andcurvatureof thearchedbuttresses; thedisposingand thecarryingofftherainwater;thesystemofcovering,—allproceedfromthecombinationofthevaulting.Thevaultsgoverntheossatureofthemonumenttoapointtowhichitwouldbe impossible to raise itotherwise thanbycommencingrigorously toplanthempreviouslytolayingthefirstcoursesof thestructure.Thisruleissowellestablishedthatifweseeachurchofthethirteenthcenturydestroyedtothelevelof thebases,andofwhich theplanalone remains,wecanwithcertaintytracetheplanofthevaults,andindicatethedirectionofallthearchesandtheirthickness.At theendof the fourteenthcentury the rigourof thesystem is stillmoreabsolute;wecan trace, inexamining thebaseofanedifice,notonly thenumberanddirectionofthearchesofthevaults,andknowtheirstrength,butthenumberoftheirmouldingsandeventheirprofiles.Inthefifteenthcenturyit isthearches(mouldings)themselveswhichdescendtothefloor,andthepillarsareonlyvertical fasces formed of all themembers of these arches.After this,wedemandhowisitthatseriousmenhavebeenabletorepulse,andstilldorepulse,thestudyofthearchitectureoftheMiddleAgesashavingbeenonlyproducedbychance?”

It will be seen fromwhat I have above stated that the order in which thepointedarchwassuccessivelyadoptedfordifferentpartsofabuilding,andthemotiveswhichledtoitsadoption,mayberoughlyclassifiedundertheheadsofStatical,Geometrical,andÆsthetical,orpositionsinwhichitwasdemandedforsoundness of construction, for the mathematical agreement of parts, and forharmonyandbeautyofeffect.

The first head embraces all wide-spanned arches, especially those I havepointedoutasthefirstinwhichitmadeitsappearance:thetransversearchesofwidevaulting, alsoarchescarrying towers, andothersbearinggreatweighton

theircrown,andallwhicharedefectiveinabutment,ordemandtheadditionofbuttresses (for remember that, though buttresses were rendered sources ofbeauty, they originated in necessity, and the aimwas to keep their projectionwithin bounds, rather than unduly to increase it). The second, or geometricalclass,includes,primarily,thenarrowerarchesofoblongvaulting;for,evenhadthe transverse section continued round, the pointed arch must soon havesuggesteditselfforthenarrowarchesofthesides;andthoughforatimetheideadid not occur, the necessity of it is only the more apparent in the want ofharmony,theunduestilting,andthelossofclerestoryspacewhicharosefromitsneglect.Underthesameheadcomeallothercasesofirregularlyformedvaultinginwhichthesidesdifferinwidth,andarchesofvariedproportionarethereforeneeded. Of the same kind are many other cases in which arches of differentwidths are in the same range, and where—though the statical view woulddemand that the widest span should have the strongest arch—geometricalagreementsuggeststhecontrary;as,forinstance,inthechoirofSt.GermaindesPres,atParis,andmanyothers,wherethesidearchesareallround;butthoseofthe apse, being narrower, are pointed. These two pressing necessities havingonce established the use of the pointed arch in a large number of the mostimportantpositions,anaturalfeelingforharmonywouldcomeintosuggestitsuse in many others. First we may mention windows under the narrowcompartmentsofgroining—as inclerestories, apsidal chapels, etc.,—where, assoon as the pointed archwas used for the vaulting, the round-toppedwindowwouldpresent a certaindegreeofdiscord, aswe seeatSt.Cross,[8] andatSt.Joseph’s Chapel[9] at Glastonbury. Then again, as windows became moreelongated,theroundarchbecameill-proportionedtothejambs;andgenerally,asthearchitectureacquiredamoreaspiringtendency, thepointedarchwasfoundmorecongenialwith its spirit; so that, littleby little, frombeinganexception,used frommere constructional expediency, it became the prevailing feature ofthestyle;thesemicirclebeingreservedforthosepositionsonlyinwhichwantofspace forbade themoreelevated form.Still,however, itwasneverabandoned,and in every period of Pointed architecturewe find it occasionallymaking itsappearance,usedfrommotivesofconveniencealone,asthepointedarchhadatfirstbeenbyreasonofitsstrength.

Afterthisitwillbeseenofhowlittleimportanceitistoinquirewhencetheformisderived;foritwasintroducednotasamatteroftaste,butofutility—notasachangeofstyle,buttomeetthepracticalrequirementsofthatalreadyinuse.The pointed archwas, in fact, as early (or thereabouts) in its invention as theround;—it is foreshadowed in theworksof theEgyptians, thePelasgi,and the

Etrurians;itwasusedbytheRomans,and,Ibelieve,bytheByzantinesandotherOrientalChristians,andbytheSassanianPersians,andwasfromanearlyperiodtheprevailingarchamongtheSaracens.Itisabsurd,then,tosupposeitunknowntotheinhabitantsofWesternEurope,whowereinconstantcommunicationwiththeEast;andthemostnaturalthingtoexpectwasthat,assoonastheywantedit,they would make use of it; though there is nothing unreasonable in thesuppositionthattheywereespeciallyremindedofit,inconsequenceofthetwocircumstancesof theCrusadesandNormanConquestofSicily.In thecaselastnamed,indeed,theconquerorshadatonceadoptedit,simplybecauseitwastheprevailing arch of the country, and, as Mr. Gally Knight remarks, “with noscientificobject,andwithoutanyreferencetotheverticalprinciple.”

Thewonderwhichhasbeenexpressedattheintroductionofthepointedarchremindsmeofaveryhomelytale,whichImustapologiseforrepeatingbeforeso grave an assembly. An unimaginative individual, on visiting the Falls ofNiagara, was greatly perplexed at the astonishment expressed by hiscompanions;andononeofthemexclaimingtohim—“Isitnotamostwonderfulfall?”—replied,“Wonderful?no! I seenothingwonderful in it.Why,what’s tohinder the water from falling?” Much the same reply is applicable to thewondering inquiriesafter the sourceof thepointedarch.When thebuildersofthetwelfthcenturyfoundtheywantedit;whentheyhadseenitsforminthefirstpropositionofEuclid;whentheyhadactuallyusedithundredsoftimesintheirintersecting arcades; when they knew that it was constantly used in the East,with which they were connected by trade, science, pilgrimage, and war; andwhen they knew that their brethren had used it in Sicily, and their fellow-countrymeninProvence;wemaywellask,withourunsentimentalfriend,“Whatwastohinderthemfromusingit?”

Simple,however,andobviousaswerethemeans,theresultwasmagical!Itisnotthematerialsofarttowhichitsexpressionisdue,butthesentiment—theheart—thesoulofthosewhouseit.Thisparticularformofarchhadlongbeenusedwithout one hint at such expression resulting from it. It had been highlyconducivetobeauty,butlittle,ifatall,toelevationofsentiment:when,however,itcameintouseasanaid to theupwardstrivingsof thearchitectsofNorthernChristendom,asanelementplacedinthehandsofmenwhohadbeenlabouringforcenturies,withalltheirenergy,torendertheirarchitectureexpressiveoftheennobling sentiments of religion—it became, in their hands, a means ofperfecting that solemnity of expression which the Romanesque buildingspossessedinsowonderfuladegree,andofaddingthemostexaltedsublimitytoitshithertosternandrigidgrandeur;justasthesimpleactionofgravitygivesto

theNiagaraFallsasublimeandoverwhelmingmajesty;suchasthesamecauseactingunderdifferentconditionshasnotendencytoproduce.

I must apologise for having occupied so long a time on these merelypreliminaryand,perhaps,notveryinterestingtopics.Ihopeinmynextlecturetobe able to give an outline of the transition as it showed itself in the differentcountries,andalsotopointoutandillustratethechangesinthedecorativeandmorepurelyartisticfeaturesofarchitecturebywhichitwasaccompanied.

LECTUREIII.

TheTransition.Gradual refinement ofRomanesque—French architects the earliest to systematise the pointed arch—TheEnglish before theGermans—The Italians from theGermans—Fully acknowledged in France 1140—Suger’sworkatSt.Denis—CarvinginFrenchchurches—Corinthianesqueoutlineofcapitals—DistinctlyByzantine capitals—A route by which Byzantine foliage may have reached France—The importationindisputable—ItseffectsseeninEarlyEnglishcapitals—WestfrontofChartres—Flutingonbasementofdoorways—CathedralofNoyon—St.GermaindesPres,Paris—CathedralofSens,prototypeoftheChoirand Trinity Chapel at Canterbury—Notre Dame, Paris—A new kind of foliage—The capital “àcrochet”—English transition—Incipient specimens—Refined Norman—Pointed style, withreminiscencesofRomanesque—WilliamofSens—WilliamtheEnglishman—InfluenceofFrenchwork—Oakham Castle—Glastonbury Abbey—Cathedral of St. David’s—Temple Church, London—Chichester Cathedral—Tynemouth Abbey—Hexham Abbey—Unfoliated capitals—Round mouldedcapitals—Characteristics of English and French transition—The German transition—Practical lessonsfromstudyingthesechanges—Principlestowhichthetransitionwaspioneer.

IN my last lecture it was my endeavour to illustrate the mechanical andstructural portion of the process by which the Romanesque, or round-archedGothic, became changed into thePointed style—a changewhich I showed tohaveresultedprimarilyfromcausespurelyconstructional,andarisingfromthemerenecessitiesofthecase,thoughsubsequentlycarriedonintoparts,inwhichthechange in theformofarch, thoughnotstatically necessary,wasdemandedfrom reasons of geometrical and æsthetic harmony. I further showed that thechangewasnot,byanymeans,thatabruptrevolutionwhichitisoftendescribedashavingbeen;thatalargeproportionofthedistinctivecharacteristicsofGothicarchitecture are common to its round-arched andpointed-archedvarieties; thatthesetwoformsofarchitecturearehardlytobecalledtwostyles,butratherthegranddivisionsofonestyle—thelatterbeingthenaturalandlogicalresultoftheprogressionevergoingonintheformer,duringeverymomentofitsprevalence,andineverycountrywhereitprevailed.

The portion of the subject, however, onwhich I then treated,was only themechanicalframeworkofthestyle—itsmereossature,touseM.ViolletleDuc’sexpression,or—asacelebratedpalæontologist,whodidmethehonourofbeingpresent, said—the “backbone” of the subject. My object this evening is tooverlay this skeleton with the muscles and sinew, and with the externalexpressions of its inner life; to show that those dry bones lived; or, in otherwords,toshowthechangesinthedecorativefeaturesofthearchitecture,andinthesculpturalartwhichaccompaniedit.Ihavefurthertotraceoutthetransition

as exhibited in the structures of different countries—and especially of France,England, andGermany;[10] and in a generalmanner to inquire both into theirpeculiarcharacteristicsandintotheorderoftheirchronologicalprecedence.

ThetendencyIhavesooftenmentionedtorefineandtoelevatethecharacterof the Romanesque architecture is common to all the countries where itprevailed.Inallwefindtheseveresimplicityofitsearlierproductionsgraduallyandsteadilyrelaxingthroughoutthewholeperiodofitshistory;therudenessofits early decorations disappearing in favour of a more artistic treatment; itsponderous massiveness becoming lightened; its low proportions changed formore lofty ones; and the general asperity of its character becoming softeneddown;sothatinitslaterstagesitseemsoftentopossessnearlyeveryfeatureofthesucceedingstyle,exceptingthepointedarchandtheelevationandlightnesswhich followed its introduction, though it also possessed features which itssuccessor speedily discarded. I especially refer to those systems ofornamentation—most of them of Oriental origin—by which the Romanesquebuildingsmayusually, irrespectiveof theirarches,bedistinguishedfromthoseofthesucceedingperiods.

Thepointedarchhaving,asIhavebeforeshown,beenfirstintroducedinthevaulting,[11] where its particular statical advantages were most required, itnaturallyfollowsthatthechangewouldcommenceearliestinthosecountriesinwhich the builders set themselves most actively about the solution of theproblem—thestepsofwhichIsomewhatatlengthtracedoutinmylastlecture;Imean the conversion of the basilica, with its timber roofs, into a completelyvaultedstructure;andIthinktherecanbenodoubtthatthatcountrywasFrance.

This, however, would not be the only condition on which the probableprecedenceamongthedifferentnations,intakingthestepwhichwasnecessaryto generating a perfect form of arcuated architecture, would depend. It seemsnecessary that it shouldnot be a country already so thoroughly providedwithnoblechurchesastoprecludetheprobabilityofagreatarchitecturalmovement,nor one which had already made so determined an effort in perfecting itsnationalstyleastohavebecometoomuchenamouredofitssuccessestobeinaposition to strikeoutboldly inanew line: indeed, it shouldbeapeopleof soactive a spirit, andwith so strong a tendency toprogress and to change, as torenderitimprobablethattheyshouldeversettledowninquietcontentmentwiththeirownattainments.Thequestionastowherethegreatstrideforwardwastobeexpectedwouldnaturally liebetweenFranceandGermany—thedominionsof the two great successors of Charlemagne in his kingly and his imperialcapacities.Neither Italy nor Englandwere so likely: the former, from her too

great proximity to Classic monuments; while the latter—though her politicalpowerwasequal to thatofFrance,hercontinentalpossessionsmostextensive,and her architectural strivings most vigorous—had too newly risen from thepositionofaconqueredcountrytotakethefirstplaceinsuchamovement,andwasalsothelesslikelytodosofromthefactofherbuildershavingforthemostpartavoidedthevaultedconstruction(onalargescaleatleast),fromwhichthefirstadvancewaslargelysuggested.

The matter lay, then, between France (I mean the actual centre of theFrankish monarchy, of which Paris was the focus) and Germany. The latter,however,hadalreadymadehergreatarchitecturalmovement,andwas(andnotwithoutcause)becomingselfsatisfiedwithherachievements.Shehadgeneratedagloriousstyle,andcoveredherlandwithmonumentsofwhichshemightwellbeproud;while thepartofFrance immediatelyunder the royalpowerhadnotyet been able to erect structures of amagnitudeworthy of her position as thegreatrepresentativestateofWesternEurope.Theimmenseinfluencegainedjustat this timeby theFrenchmonastic establishments, aswell as their schoolsoflearning and science, and stillmore the increase of the regal power under thewisegovernmentofLouisVI.,andbytheannexationofthesouthernprovincesthroughthemarriageofhissuccessor,broughtaboutthecommencementofthegreatbuildingperiodinFrance,alittlebeforethemiddleofthetwelfthcentury,andtheactivegeniusofthepeopledecidedtherest.Theconsequencewasthat,though the refinement and perfecting of theRomanesque architecturewent onuniformly in all the countries I have named, and though its transition into thePointedstyleisasdistinctlynationalinEnglandandGermanyasinFrance,theprecedence as to the time at which the grand advance was made must beunhesitatingly awarded, I will not say to France (for some parts of it wereparticularly tardy), but to that district of France round Paris, the focus of theroyal power—that portion of it, in fact, which was immediately under regalgovernment, as distinguished from that of the great vassals of theCrown.Wemust further in justice admit that, though each country had its own transition,foundeddirectlyupon itsownnationalandeven localvarietyofRomanesque,eachwasalsoinsomedegreetingedandinfluencedbytheearlydevelopmentsarrivedatintheroyaldomainofFrance.

I wish to be as specific as possible on this point, for the sake of steeringbetween two exaggerated views. The one view is this: Seeing the transitionalstyleofeachcountrytobedistinctlynational—alogicalandconsistenttransitionfrom their own local Romanesque—to conclude from this that the result wasabsolutelyindependentlyarrivedat,thoughaconsiderablechronologicalinterval

may have intervened. The other is the conclusion that, as the central Frencharchitects had been the earliest in systematising the pointed-archeddevelopments,allothercountrieshadsimply followed in theirwake,anddoneno more than follow the fashions set at Paris. The truth lies between thesecontradictory views. The communication ever going on throughout Europecausedeachcountrytoknowprettyperfectlywhatwasgoingoninothers;theirRomanesqueineachwasaboutonaparastoadvancement,andineachthewantof the pointed arch must have been nearly equally felt. Each, then, had itsnationalandlogicaltransition;buttheFrenchhavingoutstrippedtheothersastotime,manyoftheirminordevelopmentswereadoptedready-made(ifImaysayso): so that thougheach transition is clearlynational, anddistinct from thatofother countries, we nevertheless find, both in Germany and England, featureswhichhaveasclearlybeenborrowedfromtheFrench.

The English—though it would appear likely, from their adherence to opentimberroofs,thattheywouldhavefeltthewantofthepointedarchlessthantheGermans,whomoreusuallyvaultedtheirnaves,—neverthelessoutstrippedtheirmorephlegmatickinsmeninitsadoption.Thismayhavearisenfromtwocauses—theconstantuseinEnglandofcentraltowers,thefrequentfailuresofwhich,when supported by round arches, would have given them another reason todesireoneofgreaterstrength;andalsotheirintimateconnectionwithFranceandthevastdomainsinthatcountrywhichcameundertheruleofourkings.

Itistruethat(withtheexceptionofAnjouandMaine)theprovincesheldbyHenryII.werethoseinwhichtheRomanesquestyleheldoutthelongest;yetthefactthatthetwocountrieswereatthetimealmostasone—theEnglishprovincesof France being larger than, perhaps, either England itself or the independentdomainof theFrenchking—theirecclesiastical systems intimatelyunited—theFrench language spoken by all the higher orders in England, who heldpossessions perhaps of almost equal extent in both countries—it is hardlyprobablethatthestateofarchitectureshouldbegreatlydifferentinEnglandandinFrance.

TheNormans,however,andtheAquitainianshadbothastrongaffectionfortheirownRomanesquestyles,whichhadineachcountrymorestronglymarkedcharacteristics than that of the royal domain of France; and this predilectionseemstohavekeptbacktheirstrivingsforashorttime,andtohaveproducedasimilar effect in England—which, nevertheless, was the next country to royalFrance—and the parts immediately around it, tomake the change towards thePointedstyle,leavingGermanytocomeonatthecloseofthecentury,whenwehadalreadymaturedourEarlyPointedorEarlyEnglishstyle,andItalytoadopt

it still later, and through the medium of the Germans, as a return for theLombardic Romanesque which three centuries earlier she had imparted toGermany;“Asif,”tousetheeloquentwordsofMr.Petit,“thatmightyriver,thatborethetideofRomancivilisationintotheheartofEurope,hadinfusedintothenationsthroughwhichitflowedavenerationforRomanmemorials;withawishtopreserveandperpetuatethem,byestablishing,accordingtotheprinciplesoftheirconstruction,akindredandlastingstyleoftheirown:”but,asImayadd,onfinding at length those principles to be imperfect, desired to send back to thesource of this early civilisation those more advanced developments andincreasedbeautieswhichthesenationshadgeneratedfromthem.

Having thus roughly indicated the national order in which the transitionshoweditself,Iwillproceedtodescribeitscharacteristicsanditsproductionsinthesedifferentcountries,beginningwithFrance.

IhavebeforementionedthatinthesouthofFrancethereisreasontobelievethat thepointedarchwasused forbarrelvaults fromanearlydate; and in thecelebrated domical churches of Perigord andAngoumois it is used below thependentivesofthedomes,aswellasinthesectionofthedomesthemselves:this,iftheusuallyadoptedopinionbecorrect,wouldbringitintothecentreofFranceearlyintheeleventhcentury.Itiscertainlyfoundintheroyaldomainfromthecommencementofthenextcentury,butitisfromabout1140thatwemustdateitssystematicintroductionasafullyacknowledgedarchitecturalelement.

Iwillnotpretendtosaywhatistheearliestworkinwhichitisthusadmitted,nor attempt to investigate the commonly receivedopinionwhich attributes thelaunchingofthenewstyle(ifsuchitshouldbecalled)toSuger,thecelebratedAbbot of St.Denis.As, however, the architectural progress at this periodwasclearlymostactivewithintheinfluenceofthecourtofParis,andasSugerwasnot only one of thewisest and greatestmen in the kingdom, but was a greatministerofstate,itisnotunnaturalthathispersonalinfluenceuponartshouldbepowerful. In theyear1140hehad rebuilt thenaveofhis church, andalso thewest front, as it existed previously to the wretched restorations which haverendered nearly worthless the most valuable landmark in the history of thetransition.Sofaraswecannowjudgeofit,itpresentsaveryearlytransitionalcharacter,theroundandpointedarchbeingalmostindiscriminatelyused.Ofthethree portals, the central one has a round arch; the others are very slightlypointed. Their character is gorgeously rich, the shafts being either elaboratelycarved with surface ornamentation, or having full-length figures attached tothem, and the arches replete with sculpture, agreeing, indeed, precisely incharacterwith those of thewest front ofChartres and some others. The parts

whichareoriginalarebeautifullyexecuted,andthecapitalsareofthatperfectlyByzantine variety of the Corinthianesque type which I shall shortly have todescribe more in detail. In the interior, the arches of the vaulting, and thosecarrying the towers, are all pointed, but contain some strictly Romanesquefeatures.Onthewhole,theworkhasadecidedlyRomanesqueappearance,but,nevertheless, has the pointed arch so freely used in it as to show that it wasanythingbutthefirstessay.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.15.—St.Denis.InteriorofoneoftheApsidalChapels.

Inthesameyear(1140)Sugerlaidthefoundationsoftheeasternendofthechurch,which,asitissaid,“withstupendouscelerity”hehadsofarcompletedbytheyear1144,astopermitofitsconsecration;theking,withhiscapriciousqueen,Eleanor ofAquitaine, and amultitude of the greatmenof the country,beingpresentattheceremony.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.16.—St.Denis.ExternalSketchofoneoftheApsidalChapels.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.17.—St.Denis.PartofCapitalfromoneoftheApsidalChapels.

OfthechurchofSugerthetwoendswithportionsofthetranseptsareallthatnowremain; thewholeof the intermediateportion, forming little less than theentirechurch,wererebuiltfromthegroundinthesucceedingcentury,includingeventhepillarsoftheapse;sothatwearenotabletoascertainthedesignofaninternalbayofhischurch.Whatremainsoftheeasternpartembracesthepillarsround the ambulatory of the apse, with all the apsidal chapels, including alsotheircrypts.OfoneofthesechapelsIexhibitaninternal(Fig.15)andexternal(Fig.16)sketch.Fromtheseitwillbeseenthatthoughthecrypt—fromwantofheightasmuchasfromanyothercause—hasroundarches,theupperchapelsarepurelypointed,andareveryelegant in theirdesign.Thepillarsarecylindrical,withCorinthianesquecapitals(Fig.17), thewindowsandvaultingpointed,andthewhole,thoughobviouslyearly,hasverylittleofaRomanesqueair,muchlesssothanourowntransitionalspecimensofamuchlaterdate,and,whatismoreremarkable,lessthanmanyFrenchchurchesoftwentyyearslater.Thechapels,however,inthecryptaremuchmoreRomanesque,alltheirarchesbeinground,andtheirvaultingwithoutribs,thoughthedetailsagreewiththoseofthechapelsabove.

TheprincipalremnantbeyondwhatIhaveherementionedisthedoorwayofthenorth transept.This ispointed,andgenerallyhasamoreadvancedair thanthoseinthewestfaçade,thoughonexaminationthedetailsdifferbutlittle.Thereare full-length figures attached to the shafts, and angels carved in the archmouldings, as those of thewestern portals and as those at Chartres; and suchpartsofthefoliageashavenotbeenrenewedaremostbeautifullycarvedinthesameByzantinestyle.Ofthesamecharacteralsoareanumberofcapitalsfromthemonasticbuildingspreservedinaneighbouringshed.[12]

IwillnowcraveyourindulgencewhileImakeadigressiononthesubjectofthecarvinginFrenchchurchesofthisperiod.NoonecanhavefailedtonoticetheCorinthianesqueoutlineofthecapitalswhichprevailinFrancefromearlyinthetwelfthtotheendofthethirteenthcentury.Ithas,indeed,beenremarkedbywritersonthesubject,thatthisCorinthiancharactergreatlyincreasedjustbeforetheperiodofthetransition.ThoughtheeffectsofimportationsofByzantinetasteareevincedintheRomanesqueornamentationthroughoutthewholeperiodofitsduration, it seemsgenerally tohave come in the formofmanufacturedgoods,woven fabrics, jewellery, etc., etc.; and though thepatterns,bothofByzantineandother

[Imageunavailable]Fig.18.—GreekAcanthus,fromtheChoragic

MonumenttoLysicrates,Athens.

Fig.19.—RomanAcanthusfromthe

TempleofMarsUltor.

Orientalmanufactures, are to be traced in theRomanesque ornaments, andweretheoriginofmanyofthosemostfamiliartous,actualarchitecturalfeaturesofClassicform,suchascapitals,donotseemtohavebeenverydirectlycopied,exceptingwheretheremainsofantiquebuildingswereathandtooffermodels.TheRomanesquecapitalsofearlierdateare,inmanycases,oftypesbelongingtonootherstyle,thoughinotherstheybetrayadistantdescentfromtheRoman;andthecushioncapital,andperhapsothers,seemderivedfromByzantium;butgenerallytheirformsdiffermuchfromtheoriginal,tillweapproachtheperiodofwhichIamtreating,whensuddenlytheyassumeanalmostClassicform—theacanthus being freely used, and that of a variety resembling that of ancientGreece (Fig. 18), as distinguished fromRome (Fig. 19); and the same Greekleafagebeingfoundincornices(Fig.21),scroll-work(Fig.20),andalmosteveryother position inwhich it could be used.Not having travelled in the south ofFrance, Iwill not venture to be very dogmatic as to the cause of this suddenchange.I fancy, fromsuchdrawingsas Ihaveseen, that thisByzantinecapitalprevailsagooddeal inthesouthofFrance,butIamnotablewithcertaintytodistinguishitfromthecapitalsdirectlyimitatedfromClassicremainsaround.[13]M.Viollet deDuc views them all as being of this origin, calling themGallo-Romaine,asdistinguishedfromtheRomanesquecapitalsfoundsidebysidewiththem. I view those, however, I am treating of asdistinctly Byzantine, and thefollowingfactssuggestaroutebywhichthepurelyByzantinefoliagemayhavereachedthenorthofFrance.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.20.—Scroll,St.Denis. Fig.21.—PartofaCornice,St.Denis.

TheChurchofSt.Mark,atVenice,waserectedbetween theyears977and1071,anditscapitalsare,manyofthem,preciselyofthekindIamnaming(Fig.22),andarealso identicalwithmanyatConstantinople(Fig.23).Noonewhohas had a training in drawing the Corinthian capital will fail to recognise atVenice that variety of the acanthus by which he has been accustomed todistinguishtheGreekfromtheRomanCorinthian.AccordingtoM.deVerneill,theChurchofSt.Frond,at

[Imageunavailable]Fig.22.—CapitalfromtheChurchofSt.Mark,

Venice.Fig23.—CapitalfromSt.John’s,

Constantinople.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.24—CapitalfromSt.Frond,

Perigueux.Fig.25.—FragmentofCapitalfromSt.Frond,

Perigueux.

Perigueux,wasbuiltatnearlythesametime,inthecentreofFrance,butunderthe influence of Venetian merchants. This church is a direct imitation of St.Mark’satVenice;butbesidesthedistinctlyByzantineformswhichcharacterisethisandthenumerousfamilyofchurcheswhichimitateit,itcontainscapitalsofexactly thesamekindas thoseatVenice (Figs.24,25); and fromshortlyafterthistimewefindthembecomingprevalentindistricts

[Imageunavailable]Fig.26.—CapitalfromtheColumnofMarcion,Constantinople.

theotherByzantinefeaturesofthePerigordianchurchesarenotfollowed.Igivea series of capitals from Constantinople (Figs. 23, 26), Venice (Fig. 22), andPerigueux(Figs.24,25),whichcanbecomparedwith thoseIexhibit fromSt.Denis (Figs. 20, 21), St. Germain des Pres (Fig. 27), etc., etc., to show howindisputable and how direct is the importation, though, unlike the works ofClassic architects, we find no two capitals alike. They have other points ofresemblancetotheCorinthiancapital,asthecauliculi,andarudimentalrelicoftheconcave-plannedabacus.ThiswefindalsoinPisanarchitecture,andinthatoftheMoorsinSicily,andprobablyinallstyleswhichwereinfluencedbytheByzantine;anditwas,nodoubt,derivedfromthepractice,whicharosewhentheCorinthian capital began to be used directly to bear an arch (and thatoverhanging the column), of placing a strong square block over the moredelicate abacus, to defend it against the fracture to which it would otherwisehave been subject.These featureswill be found in nearly every church of thetransitionalperiodinthepartofFranceofwhichIamspeaking,andprobablyinnearlyallparts.[14]

[Imageunavailable]Fig.27.—St.GermaindesPres,Paris.

The Corinthianesque foliage became the originator of the magnificentcapitalswhichpervadethefinestFrenchworksofthethirteenthcentury,thoughthe foliage became entirely altered; and in our own country, though theByzantine original is seen, I believe, only in thework ofWilliam of Sens, atCanterbury,[15] theeffects of it are visible in the outline ofmany of our finestEarlyEnglishcapitals,thoughthesearesodistinctlynational,anddiffersomuchintreatmentfromthoseinFrance.

NearlycontemporaneouswithSuger’sworkisthewestfrontoftheCathedralofChartres,oneoftheverynoblestproductionsofthestyle.Itisnot,Ibelieve,exactly knownwhen this façadewas either commenced or completed, but thetowers were actively progressing in 1145. The three central portals are ofpeculiarmagnificence(Figs.23,30,31,32,33);theyaretooelaborateformetoventureuponillustratingthembydrawings.

[Imageunavailable]Figs.29,30,31,32,33.—EnrichedShaftsfromChartres

The figures in the jambsare, aswasusual at theperiod, in the sameblockwith the shafts themselves, and their extraordinary elongation, and the longuprightfoldsoftheirdraperieswere,nodoubt,intendedtoharmonisewiththeirpositionaspartsofcolumns.Theheadsareofpeculiardignityandgrace.Thesedoorways are probably the finest remaining of the transitional period. Theirexcessiverichnesscontrastsstrikinglywiththeseverethoughnoblesimplicityoftheremainderofthefaçade,anddisplaysnotonlythattendencytolavishalltheresourcesofartuponthedoorways,whichsoespeciallycharacterisesFrenchart,butalsoillustrates,inthemoststrikingmanner,theabsoluteindependenceofthearchitecture of mere ornamentation, and, at the same time, the freedom withwhichitavailsitselfofit;therichdoorwaysandtheseverelyplaintowersbeingequally glorious specimens of the style, and neither suffering in the least byjuxtapositionwiththeother.

I will just call attention to the singular ornamentation of the pedestal orbasementofthedoorways,bymeansoffluting,etc.ThiswascommoninFranceatthatperiod,thoughIamnotabletotraceittoitssource.Itisalmostidenticalwith that of the western doorway of St. Germain des Pres,[16] and we find itcarried out with still greater richness in the somewhat later doorways whichflankthewesternfaçadeatRouen.

The capitals in this façade (at Chartres) are of the kind I have abovedescribed.Thesoutherntowerandspirearemostnobleintheircomposition,andarehardlyexceededinbeautybythoseofanysubsequentperiod.

ThenextexampleIwillalludetoistheCathedralofNoyon.Thedateofthiscathedralisunknown;buttheoldchurchhavingbeendestroyedbyfirein1131,and the Bishop (Beaudoin), who shortly after succeeded to the see, being anintimate friend of Abbot Suger, it has been put down almost as an historicalcertaintythathecommencedrebuildingthechurchnotlongaftertheerectionofthatofSt.Denis,andthatthedesignsweremadeundertheadviceofSuger.Iamnot prepared either to subscribe to this implicitly or to dispute it. On firstexaminingthechurch,myimpressionwasadversetothistheory;butSt.Denisitself lookssomuchlater than it is,and theapparentanomalies in thedatesofthisperiodaresoperplexing,thatoneisdisposedtohesitatebeforedisputingatheorysupportedbysuchmenasViolletleDuc.If,however,theideabecorrect,I should limit the early date to the lower portion of the choir. The sameintermixtureoftheroundarchwiththepointedobtainsthroughoutthecathedral;

butnotonlyarethemouldingsoflatersectioninthewesternparts(asM.leDucpointsout),butthecapitalswhichprevailintheupperstoreysofthechoiritselfareofakindwhichIcannotthinksoearlyasthedateassigned.

Thecapitalsofthelowerstorey(ortheaislesandapsidalchapels),areoftheCorinthianesque description, intermixedwith others of interwoven stalks, etc.,andareeminentlybeautiful.

I give a sketch of one of the apsidal chapels, both within (Fig. 34) andwithout (Figs.35,36),asaparallel to thoseatSt.Denis.Thecomparisonwillcertainlytendtoconfirmthetheoryastoitsdate,astheprevalenceoftheroundarch gives it an appearance of even earlier age; but we shall see from otherexamplesthatthisevidenceisnotwhollytobereliedon.

[Imageunavailable]Figs.34,35.—CathedralofNoyon.InteriorandExteriorofoneoftheApsidalChapels.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.36.—CathedralofNoyon.PlanofoneoftheApsidalChapels.

Theplanofthischurchisexceedinglybeautiful,havingapsidalterminations,notonlytothechoir(Fig.36),buttoeachtransept.Inthisitissupposedtohavebeen imitated from thenoble transepts atTournay,withwhich seeNoyonwasconnectedtilltheyear1153,almosttheveryyeartowhichbothoftheseworkshave been attributed, though the transepts at Tournay are still purelyRomanesque,andthatoftheverygrandestandboldestkind,exceptingonlythepointed vaulting; while those at Noyon (which, however, are somewhat laterthan the choir) are of very light and almost flimsy construction, and thoughcontainingmanyroundarches,are,intheirwholeaspect,ofthePointedstyle.

The church atNoyon is of a construction towhich I barely alluded inmyformer lecture—that inwhich the aisles are of two storeys, both ofwhich arevaulted.

Itiscustomarytocallthissecondstoreyatriforium,butIshouldrathertermitagallery,forthetriforiumproperoccupiestheintervalbetweentheroofandthe vaulting of the aisles, a spacewhich occursover these galleries; so that achurchofthisconstructionhasfourstoreys—theaisle,thegallery,thetriforium,and the clerestory; the triforium being, as its name seems to import, the thirdstorey,thoughinchurchesofthemorecustomarytypeitisonlythesecond.ThisconstructionwasverycommonatthisperiodinFranceandGermany,thoughinEngland I recollect only one instance—the choir of Gloucester—which,however, is soalteredasalmost toconceal itsconstruction.[17]ThevaultingatNoyonispointed,butitssidecellsare,Ithink,ineverycaseround.TheexterioroftheapsidalchapelsatNoyonisnotunlikethoseatSt.Denis,thoughwithoutitscrypt.Likeit,ithascolumnsusedforbuttresses,anideainheritedfromthoseof earlier date—as those at Nôtre Dame du Pont at Clermont, at Issoire, andmanyothers.

Therearenobleportalsontheeastsidesofthetranseptsinwhichthecarvedfoliage is of the most gorgeous description, and which were formerly repletewithsculpture,everyvestigeofwhichisnowgone,havingbeenmostcarefullycutoutattheRevolution.

Onthewhole,thischurchisoneofthebeststudiesofthetransition,thoughdefectiveinoneimportantelement—adate.

ThenextexampleIwillnoticeistheChurchofSt.GermaindesPresatParis,an exampleof special value from its possessing the elementwhichwe lack atNoyon.Itwasdedicatedin1163,ornineteenyearsafterSt.Denis.

The comparison of St. Germain with St. Denis leads to one of the mostcuriousquestionsconnectedwiththispartofarchitecturalhistory;forduringthisintervalofnearlytwentyyearsnoprogresswhateverwouldappeartohavebeenmade;indeed,tojudgefromthebuildings,onewouldbedisposedtotransposetheirdates;forwhiletheeasternpartofSt.Denis,in1144,ispurelypointed(thecrypt alone excepted), St. Germain, in 1163, has round arches used in mostprominentpositions,thoughinotherrespectsexactlyagreeingindetail;andthisinamostimportantchurchintheroyalcityitself.

Howisthislongstagnationtobeexplained?Iwillnotpretendtoanswer itpositively,butIwouldsuggest thefollowing

solution:—Two years after Louis VII. and Queen Eleanor attended theconsecrationofSt.Denis,theysetoutonagreatCrusade—theoneattheheadof10,000warriors,theotherofatroopofAmazonsshehadleviedfromamongtheladiesofhercourt.TheAmazonsandtheirinordinateamountofbaggageledtothedestructionof the armyat thebattleofLaodicea.Theking returned tohisdominions impoverished and humbled, shortly after which his Amazonianconsort,obtainingadivorce,deprivedhimatonestrokeofhalfofhisdominions,andtransferredtherichProvençaldowertoHenryII.,theEnglishking.Iwouldsuggest, then,whether thissuddenstoppage in thedevelopmentofarchitecturemaynotbeaccountedforbytheequallysuddenexhaustionoftheresourcesoftheFrenchkingdom,astheearlycommencementoftheimprovedstylehasbeeninameasureattributedtoitspreviousincreaseinprosperity?

[Imageunavailable]Fig.37.—St.GermaindesPres,Paris.TwoBaysofChoir.

ThesculpturalartatSt.GermaindesPresseemsexactlyonaparwiththatatSt.DenisandChartres.ThecapitalsareeitheroftheByzantineCorinthianesque,orarefilledwithanimals(naturalandgrotesque),orconsistofaunionofboth.Theyareexceedinglyfineexamplesoftheirstyle,andIhaveselectedone[18]ofthem as a type of the style. The design of the interior of the choir, thoughseverely simple, is exceedingly fine, and in some degree original. I exhibit asketchoftwoofitsbays(Fig.37).

[Imageunavailable]Fig.38.—St.GermaindesPres,Paris.WesternDoorway.

Thewesterndoorway(Fig.38)seemstohaveverycloselyresembledthoseatChartres;but thewholeof thesculpturehasbeenremoved,exceptingfromthetympanum, which still bears the representation of the Last Supper; and theshafts, which, we are informed, bore full-length figures—alternating, in allprobability, with smaller ones richly diapered, as at St. Denis, Chartres, andBourges—have been exchanged for plain ones. The capitals are of richCorinthianesque foliage, amongst which are represented grotesque birds,harpies, etc.The basement or pedestal is fluted exactly as atChartres.On thewhole,thischurchdeservesmuchmoreattentionthanitseemsgenerallytohavereceived.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.39.—CathedralofSens.InteriorView.

Inowcometoanexampleofpeculiar interest toourselves;—thatcathedralwhich it is customary to suppose to be the parent of our own Pointedarchitecture; and which, though I by no means subscribe to that opinion,possessesaninterestsufficientlydeepasbeing,withoutquestion,theprototypeof the glorious choir and the Trinity Chapel at Canterbury,—themetropolitanchurch of all England—and as having, through them, exercised a powerfulinfluence, and given a certain degree of French colouring to the immediatelysucceedingdevelopmentsthroughoutthelengthandbreadthofourland.IneedhardlysaythatIalludetothecathedralofSens.

IamashamedtosayIhadnotseenthisnoblechurchtillashorttourIhavemadeduring thepresentwinter,[19] andwith reference to thepresent lecture. Ihad unconsciously entertained a certain feeling of jealousy towards it, arisingfromtheexaggeratedopinionsconstantlyexpressedastotheentiredependenceuponitofourPointedstyle;butmyfirstexclamationonenteringitsnavewas,“Well,ifourGothicchurchesareallderivedfromthis,theyhad,tosaytheleast,agloriousparentage!”

Though a cathedral of the second magnitude, and much injured bysubsequent alterations, I know few which have a nobler or more impressiveaspect. Even the soaring interior ofAmiens,which I chanced to visit the dayafter,didnoteffacefrommymindthesternergrandeurofSens.

The interior isextremelysimple(Fig.39),and ratherobtains its impressiveeffectfromthemagnitudeofitsleadingfeatures,andstillmorefromthenoblesentiment which must have pervaded the mind of its designer, than fromanything which can be specifically defined in words. Its nave is of unusualwidth, being 49 feet from centre to centre of the pillars,which are alternatelyvastclusteredpiersofabout11feet6inchesdiameter(alargeportionofwhichrunsuptothevaulting),andcoupledcolumnsofnearlythreefeetdiametereach.Thetriforiumissomewhattoosmall—theonly

[Imageunavailable]Fig.40.—CathedralofSens.ViewofChoirAisles.

faultinthecomposition—andtheclerestorywindowshave,unfortunately,beenrenewedata laterage.It isgenerallystated that thewholeof thevaultingwasrenewedwiththem:this,however,isincorrect;theonlypartsrenewedwerethesidecells,which,asisprovedbyevidenceIneednotheregointo,wereround-arched,andcamelowintheclerestorywall, thusdiminishingtheheightof thewindows—adefectwhichledtotheirreconstruction.Notonlyaretheribsoftheoriginalsection,butthebossesareclearlyofthesameearlyage,which,Ithink,issufficienttodisprovetheideaofthevaultshavingbeenrebuilt.Thevaultingoftheaisleshasroundtransversearches,andtheaislewindows,aswellasthewall-arcading,areround-arched(Fig.40).Thecarvingisofthesamekindwiththat I have so often described, andmost of it is severely simple. Someof thecapitalstothewall-arcadingareveryrich,andmanyofthemcontaingrotesqueanimals,birds,etc.,finelycarved(Figs.41,42).

[Imageunavailable]Figs.41,42.—Sens.CapitalsfromChoirAisles.

Thewest portalswere, probably, the latest part of the original church, andhave since been altered by the substitution of tympana of later date; but thesculpturedarttheycontainissomeoftheveryfinestofitsperiod,manyofthefigures being of classic beauty, and of far more than classic expression. Thischurchwasdedicatedin1167,though(withthesoleexceptionoftheportals)itscharacterwouldhaveledonetoplaceitearlierthanSt.Denis.

Two years before the consecration of Sens was commenced the greatcrowningwork of the French transition—NôtreDame at Paris.[20] Its erectionoccupiedtheremainderofthecentury,whilethatofthewesternfaçadereachesover the firstquarterof thesucceedingone. Iwillnotattemptadescriptionofwhatthismostnoblechurchwasinitsoriginalcondition:itwillbefoundclearlyparticularisedinM.ViolletleDuc’sDictionary—aworkwhichshouldbeinthehandsofeveryarchitecturalstudent.Iwillratherconfinemyselftoitsinfluenceuponsculpturedfoliage.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.43.—NôtreDame.

OnitsfirstcommencementnoadvancewasmadeupontheByzantinecarvingofSt.Denis;indeed,thecapitalsintheeasterngallerylookalmostmorearchaicthan their predecessors of twenty or thirty years’ earlier date. It is curious,however, that the capitals of the large columns below these galleries are in adecidedly more advanced style. This M. le Duc ingeniously attributes to theemploymentofartistsofdifferentages,andtothepreferencegiven(inanageofadvancement)totheyoungerones,leadingtothemoreimportantcapitalsbeingcommitted to their hands. I should, however, be inclined to account for itdifferently, by supposing the smaller andmore detached capitals to have beencarvedbeforetheywerefixed,andthoseofthegreatpillarslefttothelastthingbefore the removal of the scaffolding. I can appreciate this by my ownexperience,for in thechurchIambuildingatHamburgtherewillbesometenyears’ interval between the carving of the triforium and of the pillars whichsupportit;duringwhichintervalIamhorrifiedwhenIrecollectthatallbutoneoftheartistshavediedfromthedestructiveeffectsofthestonedust,andthatonehasbeen savedonlybymyhaving requestedhim to relinquish carvingand tocontenthimselfwithmakingmodelsforotherstoworkfrom—asystemwhich,under other circumstances, is one of the advisableness of which I entertaindoubts.

Thecapitals,however,inthenavearethosewhichbestdisplaytheenormousadvance now being made. I should not have dwelt so long on the merelyantiquarianfactoftheimportationoftheByzantine

[Imageunavailable]Figs.44,45,46.—NôtreDame,Paris.

Corinthian intoFrance,had it not led to thisglorious result. In thenaveofNôtreDame every vestige of thisGreekesque foliage is got rid of, its generaloutline alone excepted;[23] and a kind perfectly new and most truly noble issubtituted, founded slightly on reminiscences of the true Romanesque foliageprevious to the Oriental importation, retaining the outline suggested by theacanthusleaf,butworkedupintoaformwhichhadneverbeforebeenhintedat,andwhichwasdestined toeffectagreat revolution in thisbranchofart.Fromthis time forward (till the end of the thirteenth century) the French carving isnoble and effective in the very highest degree—at first gradually approachingnatural formswithout directly imitating them, but eventually adopting franklytheproductionsofnatureasitsguide,butsofarconventionalisingthemastofitthemperfectlytotheirposition,andtomakethemproduceacontour

[Imageunavailable]Figs.47,48.—NôtreDame,Paris.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.49.—St.Leu,nearCreil.

Capitalfromtheapse.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.50.—NôtreDame,WestFront. Fig.51.—St.Eusèbe,Auxerre.

harmonising with, and adding the utmost beauty to, the features of thearchitecturetowhichtheyareapplied.IexhibitspecimensofthisclassoffoliageinNôtreDame(Figs.47,48).IwillalsocallattentiontoadrawingofoneofthecapitalsfromtheapseofSt.Leu,nearCreil(saidtohavebeenexecutedalittleafter a great accession ofwealth to the abbey in 1175,M. leDuc says about1190),asaspecimenofthesameadvanceinfoliagedcarving,andtosomeofthecapitals from the west front of Nôtre Dame (about 1220) as examples of itssuccessjustbeforethesystematicintroductionofnaturalfoliage.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.52.—Noyon.Capitalfromtheapse. Fig.53.—Laon.Capital.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.54.—Sens. Fig.55.—NôtreDame.

AtthispointIoughttomentiontheintroduction(thoughofsomewhatearlierdate)ofwhattheFrenchcallthecapital“àcrochet.”Iexhibitasketchshowingitsoriginfromaplainunruffledleaf,whichaccompaniedtheByzantineacanthus(Fig.51).ThisplainleafmaybeseeninasimpleformintheapsidalcolumnsatNoyon, inamoreadvanced state in thenaveof the samechurch, andatLaon(which,however,isagooddeallater),andprettywelldevelopedatSens,andatMontmartre. In Nôtre Dame the capital à crochet assumes a considerableimportance,andinthewestfrontisusedinitsmostperfectpurelyconventionalform;whilealittlelater,asattheSainteChapelle,itisdeckedandentwinedwithnatural leaves in themost elegantmanner imaginable.No featurewhich aroseduringtheFrenchtransitionissouniversalinitsinfluenceonthearchitectureofothercountries.InFranceitsuseisoftencarriedtoaviciousexcess;but,usedinmoderation,itisaveryvaluableelementinthearchitecturalisationoffoliage.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.56.—SainteChapelle. Fig.57.—SainteChapelle. Fig.58.—St.Remi,Rheims,W.E.

I have to apologise, as well for the length to which I have prolongedmyremarksontheFrenchtransition,asfortheverymeagreoutlinewithwhichthelimits of a lecture have compelledme to satisfy myself. I will reserve a fewremarkssuggestedbywhathaspassedsohastilyinreviewtillIhavedescribedsomeoftheEnglishexamples.

TheEnglishtransitionwassocompleteinitself,andallitsstagessoperfectandsoconsecutive,thatwereitnotforourknowledgeofthatofFrance,andforthe interpolation—if I may say so—of the almost purely French work atCanterbury, onewould be loath to believe that it had been influenced by anyother than thenatural and spontaneousworkingoutof thedevelopmentofourownRomanesque.

Itmaybedividedintoseveralstages, thoughtheyareoften intermingled inthesamework.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.59.—FountainsAbbey.ViewacrossNave.

First, those buildings which are strictly Romanesque, excepting only thatpointedarchesarepartiallyused.SuchisthenaveofFountainsAbbey.Thedateofthisisunknown;butitwasinallprobabilityerectedbetween1140and1150,thusagreeinginagewithSt.Denis.NextcomesKirkstallAbbey,commencedin1153, and, though it appears to have taken thirty-three years to complete it,retaining the same character throughout—purely Romanesque—and that of asternandseverevariety,butwiththepointedarchestoitsmoreimportantparts.BuildwasAbbey belongs to the same class, commenced probably a few yearsafterthefoundationoftheabbeyin1135,itsearlierpartsthusprobablyagreeinginagewithFountains.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.60.—KirkstallAbbey,SouthTransept.

TheseexampleswouldappearatfirstsighttodatebackourtransitionasearlyasthatofFrance;butthiswouldscarcelybeafairconclusion,for,withoutdoubt,many French examples of the same kind—mere Romanesque with the largerarches pointed—exist in France of an earlier date than that of Abbot Suger’swork.Iwillthereforepassoverthesemerelyincipientspecimens.

ThenextclassistheextremelyrefinedNorman,

[Imageunavailable]Fig.61.—Galilee,Durham.

withorwithoutpointedarches—suchas theGalileeatDurham,where, thoughthedateisclearlytransitional,theornamentsareNormanofadelicatecharacter,verydifferentfromFountainsandKirkstall,andshowingalaterdate.ThiswastheworkofthecelebratedBishopPudsey,thegreatpromoterofthetransitioninthenorth.Hecommencedin1155(asI

[Imageunavailable]Fig.62.—St.Mary’sAbbey,York.VestibuleofChapterHouse.ViewfromCloister(restored).

believe)with his chapter-house—apurelyNormanwork—and closedwith theerection of Darlington Church, nearly as purely Pointed;[24] his episcopatespreading over about forty years. Of this class the examples in the north ofEnglandaremostnumerous,butaresointermixedwithdecidedlyPointedworkas somewhat to confuse the classification. It is common, in fact, to find abuildingnearlypurelyPointed,butwithdoorwaysofthisclass;ofwhichthereisa notable, but not very early instance, at Jedburgh, where the doorways areperfect gems of refined Norman of the highest class and most artistic finish,whiletheinteriorofthechurchispurelyPointed.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.64.—St.Mary’sAbbey,York.PlanofVestibuleoftheChapterHouse.

OneofthemostremarkablespecimensofthisclassisatSt.Mary’sAbbey,atYork,inthevestibuleofthechapter-house.Igivearestoredviewofoneoftheentrances, partly from remains insitu, and partly from fragments preserved intheMuseum. The date of this most exquisite work is unknown; but I shouldsuppose it contemporary with the later years of Archbishop Roger, the greatpromoterof the transition in thatdiocese, andwhopresidedover the see from1154to1181.Herebuiltthechoirofhiscathedral,ofwhichthenobleremainsofthecryptwere

[Imageunavailable]Fig.63.—St.Mary’sAbbey,York.ViewofVestibulefromChapter-House(restored).

[Imageunavailable]Fig.66.—PartofChoirofRiponMinster,asbuiltbyArchbishopRogerdePontl’Evêque.

discoveredafewyearsback,ofaveryrefinedNormanstyle.Healsobuilt thepalace on the north side of the cathedral, ofwhich amost beautiful fragmentremains(Fig.65).Thisfragment,thoughsimple,andwithroundarches,agreesexactly in itsdetailwith thedoorwayatSt.Mary’s,evento theexactdiameterandheightof its shafts andcapitals, andwas,nodoubt, executedby the samepersons.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.65.—Archbishop’sPalace,York.

Roger,also,ashasbeenprovedbyMr.Walbran,builtthechoiratRipon,ofwhichIgiveabay(Fig.66).Ofthesameclass,andinthesamediocese,maybementionedthewestendofSelbyAbbeyandtheChurchatOldMalton;RocheAbbey,andofthesamedateareprobablythestatelyremainsofBylandAbbey—oneofthenoblestrelicsoftheage,andofwhichthechoirwasclearlybuiltontheplanofthatofRogeratYork.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.67.—ElyCathedral,SouthTransept.Westend.

In the south Iwill firstmention theChurch of St. Cross, nearWinchester,whichseemstobeintermediatebetweentheabove-namedclasses;itisNorman,ofagrandandsevere,but,at thesametime,highlyrefinedcharacter,butwithpointedarchestoallprincipalparts;itsfoliageisuntingedbyFrenchtaste,butisofaveryrefinedandelegantcharacter;itisasmassiveastheearlierspecimens,withouttheirheaviness—impressive,withoutbecomingoppressive;itis,infact,the most perfect and the purest type of the indigenous English transition.Unfortunately,itsdateisunknown,forthoughfoundedin1136,andthehospitalactuallycommenced in thatyear, it is impossible togivesoearlyadate to thechurch. Itwas foundedbyHenrydeBlois,brother toKingStephen,whoheldtheseeofWinchesterfrom1129to1171,anditisbutreasonabletosupposethattheearlierpartsofthechurchwerecompletedduringhislifetime.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.68.—St.Cross,nearWinchester.

ContemporarywiththecloseofthisstructureisthegreatwesterntoweroftheCathedral at Ely, erected byBishopRidel, between 1174 and 1189, in a verygrand and effective style, for the most part purely English in character, butoccasionally displaying the influence of French examples in the use of thecrochetcapital.

Thisbringsmetothegreattypeofthethirdclass—thosebuildingswhichareunquestionably in thePointedstyle,but retainsufficient reminiscencesof theirRomanesqueorigintodistinguishthemfromthefully-developedEarlyEnglish.Ialludetothechoir(Fig.69)andTrinityChapel(Fig.70)atCanterbury.Imayhere save myself and you much time by referring you to Professor Willis’sadmirable architectural history of this cathedral, a book with which everyarchitecturalstudentshouldbefamiliar.IwillonlymentionthatthesplendidlateNormanchoirhavingbeendestroyedbyfire in1174, themonkscommitted itsrestorationtoWilliamofSens,whohad,inallprobability,beenengagedontherecently-completedcathedralinthatcity.Hecarriedontheworkstilldisabledbyanaccident in1179,whenheleft themin thehandsofhisassistant,called,byway of distinction,William, the Englishman, who brought them to a close in1184or1185.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.71.—CanterburyCathedral,Capitals.WilliamofSens.

TheworkofthefirstWilliamisalmostpurelyFrench,and,thoughfarmoreelaborate than that at Sens, very strongly resembles it. He had, however, thegoodjudgmenttoAngliciseitinaslightdegree,asweseeintheliberaluseofthezigzagandother

[Imageunavailable]Fig.69.—CanterburyCathedral.Choir.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.70.—CanterburyCathedral.TrinityChapel.

Normanornaments.HiscapitalsaresomeoftheByzantinecharacterofSens,andothers in the newly-developed style ofNôtreDame atParis, and are veryfinelycarved(Fig.71).Thearchesarenotallpointed,thepierarches,wallribs,andtriforiumarchesbeinground.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.72.—TrinityChapel,CanterburyCathedral.Capital.WilliamtheEnglishman.

WilliamtheEnglishmandiscardedtheByzantinefoliage,andadopted,almostexclusively,theNôtreDametypeandthecapitalàcrochet,whichhecarriedoutwith extreme beauty. His work is far more beautiful than that of his master,though from the resemblance of the plan to that of Sens, and from the use ofdoubledcolumns,itmusthavebeenlaiddownbytheFrenchWilliam.Iknownoworkoftheagefinerthanthoseofthesetwoarchitects.OnethingIwillremarkaboutthesecondarchitect,thathemadehiscrypt,inwhichheworkedunfetteredbythedesignsofanother,moreEnglishthanthesuperstructure,usingthere(ashe did also in one or two other places) the round abacus, subsequently socharacteristicofEnglishwork.

Theinfluenceof theFrenchwork thus introducedintoEnglandisdistinctlymarked,andthereisnodifficultyintracingitwhereveritexists;butitisbynomeans such as to supersede the national type. Perhaps the most pervadingsymptomof it is theprevalencehenceforthof thecrochet capital, thougheventhatseldomassumesaformwhollyFrench,butreceivesadistinctlyEnglishandoftenalocalmodification.Themostpalpableinstance(andalmosttheonlyoneofthisdirectkindwhichIremember)oftheimitationofCanterburyworkisseeninthehallofthecastleatOakham,builtbyWalkelindeFerrers,probably,asMr.Hartshornesays,between1180and1190.Inthisthecapitals,thoughwithsomeoriginality,areobviouslyofFrenchcharacter,andprobablyfoundedonthoseoftheTrinityChapel.[25]

[Imageunavailable]Fig.73.—OakhamCastle.

ImmediatelyafterCanterbury,andprobablyinpartcontemporaneouswithit,was the magnificent Abbey Church of Glastonbury. It appears to have beenerectedchieflybetween1180and1190, though finisheda little later. I amnotawarewhethertheChapelofSt.JosephofArimathea(whichstandsatthewestend, like the Galilee at Durham) was built earlier than the church:[26] at firstsight it would convey that impression, all the arches, except those of thevaulting,beinground.Initsdetails,however,it

[Imageunavailable]Fig.74.—ChapelofSt.JosephofArimathea,Glastonbury.ExteriorView.

resemblesthoseofthechurch,wherethearchesareallpointed.Thischapelisofexquisite beauty, and its details in the highest degree refined; indeed, nothingcouldexceedthestudiouscarewithwhicheveryfeatureandtheprofileofeverymoulding is carriedout.TheEnglish type is adhered to in the retention, in anexceedingly refined form, and in great variety of decorations founded in thechevron,andintheuseofintersectingarcades.Theexternalbuttressesassume

[Imageunavailable]Fig.75.—ChapelofSt.JosephofArimathea,Glastonbury.InteriorView.

aformofpeculiareleganceandoriginality;thebasemouldsareofnobleform,wholly differing from those in France. The turrets at the angles are of greatbeauty. The whole shows symptoms of a perfect knowledge of Frenchdevelopments,buttheonlydistinctiveimitationofthemisinthecapitals,whichdisplay,inmanyinstances,thecrochet form,butwithabeautyandfreedomoftreatmentpeculiarlytheirown,differingnotonlyfromtheFrenchexamples,butfromthegreatmajorityofEnglishones,andexercisingastronglocalinfluence,extending from Somerset along the north side of the Bristol Channel, andreaching even the distant Cathedral of St. David’s. The church agrees in itsdetailswiththechapel,butitsremainsaregrievouslyfragmentary.Thetriforiumwasunited

[Imageunavailable]Fig.76.—CathedralofSt.David’s.InternalBayofNave.

withthepierarcadeinamannerIdonotrecollectinanyotherPointedchurch,thoughitisseenonaround-archedformatOxford,andintheearlyportionofJedburgh Abbey. The piers are beautifully clustered, as is suggested by themultifariousdestinationsoftheirparts,oneportionbeingtocarrythevaultingoftheaisles;a second, the lower tierofpier-arches;a third, theupper tier;andafourth, the higher vaulting. It is distressing to think how little of this mostgloriouschurchremains.ItwasprobablyunequalledbyanytransitionalchurchinEngland, but has actually—even up to our own day—been used as a stonequarry!

Ishouldhavementionedthatinthechapelthepointedvaultingisusedinitsfully-developedform—bothmainarchesandsidecellsbeingpointed.

OfthesameageisagreatpartoftheCathedralofSt.David’s,ofwhichIgiveaninternalbay(Fig.76).Itwascommencedin1182,justafterWilliamofSensrelinquishedhisworkatCanterbury.ItscharacterisdecidedlymoreRomanesquethanthatofGlastonbury.Thearchesaregenerallyround,andthevaultingseemstohavereversedtheearlycustom,beingroundinthemainarch,andpointedinits side cells. The ornaments of the chevron type are used, as atGlastonbury;there is the same refined and studious detail, and the same class of capital isoccasionally used, though the majority are formed on the Norman cushioncapital.Thisformofcapitalhadundergonealongseriesofchanges;atfirstthecushions were single on each face and the profile convex; then they becamegraduallymultiplied,but still convexbelow; then theoutlinebecameconcave;subsequentlythecushionsfromsemicirclesbecameamuchgreaterportionofacircle, appearing like a series of rolls bent into a concave outline, with deephollowsbetweenthem.ThisoccursfrequentlyatSt.David’s.Thenextstepistodecoratethecircularendsoftheserolls.ThisisdoneatSt.David’s,sometimeswithfoliage,sometimeswithlittlefigures,asinmedallions,and,asalaststep,before the final rejection of the type, the whole roll is converted into foliagetogether.AtSt.David’salltheselaterstepsareexhibitedinaverycuriousandinteresting manner. Some of them may be seen in the choir of LichfieldCathedral,andatHerefordintheeasternchapel.

[Imageunavailable]Figs.77,78.—St.David’s.

AtSt.David’sthetriforiumisunitedwiththeclerestory,somethingasatSt.GermaindesPres.[27]Theclerestoryhastwobaystoonearchbelow,andhashadsexpartite vaulting; not, as usual, embracing two bays, but two of these semi-bays. It is interesting to find in this most remote of the cathedrals of SouthBritain,andonlyjustvergingoutoftheRomanesque,adegreeoforiginalityandofrefinementequaltowhatismetwithinourbestexamples.

ThecircularportionoftheTempleChurchin

[Imageunavailable]Fig.79.—TempleChurch.ViewofCircularAisle.

LondonisexactlycontemporarywithCanterbury,havingbeenconsecratedin1185,theyearwhenthatworkwascompleted.Itissomewhatlessadvancedinstyle,possiblyfromapreferencefeltamongtheTemplarsfortheRomanesque.The pillars and main arches, with the vaulting generally, it is true, are quiteadvancedPointed,andareexceedinglybeautiful;butthetriforiumconsistsofanintersectingarcade,asatSt.Cross,andthewindowsarequiteNorman;while,ontheotherhand,thewall-arcadingispointed.Thecapitalsareofseveralvarieties;most of them are of the simple water-leaf form so prevalent in the north ofEngland,whileothersarefoundedonthecushionandthecrochetforms.

It is exceedingly vexatious that the dates of buildings of this period are sodifficulttobeascertained.

Evenwhereweknowbywhomtheywereerected,theirfounderswereoftenso long-lived as to render the information perfectly indefinite. Thus, Pudseypresided over the see of Durham for forty years, Roger over York for nearlythirtyyears,andHenrydeBloisoverWinchesterforty-twoyears;andWalkelindeFerrers,whobuilt thehall atOakhamCastle, held themanor from1161 to1201.

AmongthelaterworksofthetransitionmaybementionedtheeasternpartofChichesterCathedral[28](Fig.80),amostbeautifulexample,ofwhichIgiveaninternal view; and a yet nobler specimen is the eastern portion of TynemouthAbbey(Fig.81).OfthisIgivearestoredview,inwhichIhavesuppliedoneofthebayswhichhavefallen,andalsothevaulting,withitscurioustermination,

[Imageunavailable]Fig.80.—ChichesterCathedral,EasternPart.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.81.—TheChoir,TynemouthAbbey.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.82.—HexhamAbbey.SouthsideofChoir.

against theeastend.This,again, isadatelesswork.Thoughexternally theflatNormanbuttressisretained,itpossessesinternallynoRomanesquefeatures,butispurelyPointedandthoroughlydevelopedineverypart,thoughretainingwhatinEnglandisthegreatdistinguishingcharacteristicofthetransition—thesquareabacus.Thedetailsareexceedinglyrichandbeautiful,whilethevast thicknessofitswallsgivestotheinterioramassivegrandeurseldomequalled.Itssituationisungenial,beingonadullpromontoryandcloseupontheshore,sothateveryblast from the German Ocean whistles through its arches; yet, chilling as itsposition is,nooneof tastecanvisit itwithout findinghisheartwarmupwithadmirationof its noble andbeautiful architecture,which is excelledby few, ifany,examplesofitsperiod.

InthesamenortherndistrictisHexhamAbbey,anobleexampleofwhatmaycalled the transition fromthe transition into thedevelopedEarlyEnglish (Fig.82). Farther north, again, we have noble examples at Kelso, Jedburgh, andDryburgh: the first having the round arch nearly throughout; the second, as Ihavebeforesaid,famedforitsexquisitedoorways;andthelasthavingdoorwaysequally refined, but remarkable rather for their chaste simplicity than for theirrichnessofdetail.Ioughtalsotomention,amongothernorthernexamples,theAbbeyofFurnessandthesisterchurchofCartmel;alsothenoblerefectoriesatFountainsandRivaulx.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.83.—Bridlington,Yorkshire.Capitalfoundinwall.

To attempt, however, an enumeration of English examples would be anendlesstask.Sofarfrombeingamereexotic,thecountryappearstohavebeenabsolutelysaturatedwithtransitionalbuildings:andthese,sofarfromshowinganyofthatinaptitudewhichwouldaccompanytheuseofamereimportedstyle,actuallyevinceadegreeoforiginalityandarevelry(ifImayusesuchaterm)inthenewartwhich isperfectly charming, anddisplaybeautieswhollydifferentfromanyIhaveseeninothercountries.Notonlyisthisthecaseinworksonagrand scale, but in the smallest village churches, in which we find the stylereducedtoitssimplestelements,yetexhibitingasenseofbeautyandastudiousattentiontodetailwhichisquitesurprising.Oneofthefeaturesofthesesimplerproductionsistheplainunfoliatedcapital—suchasthoseatFountainsAbbey—butwhich, from its simplicity, is of frequent use in village churches.Nothingcouldbemoreseverelyplain,yetitpossessesadegreeofbeautyequalinitswayto that of themost gorgeous capitals.We see from the examples I give fromRiponandFountains,howthispassedoffintotheroundmouldedcapitalwhichissopeculiaracharacteristicoftheEnglishEarlyPointed.[29]

[Imageunavailable]Fig.84.—Capital,Ripon. Fig.85.—Capital,Fountains.

ThedistinctivecharacteristicsoftheproductionsoftheEnglish,ascomparedwith theFrench, transition, are somewhatdifficult todefine, inasmuchas theybegin inamanner thevery reverseof that inwhich they terminate; forat firsttheyevincethemselvesinastrongerresemblancetotheprecedingRomanesque,

[Imageunavailable]Fig.86.—St.Cross,Hampshire.SouthAisleofChoir.

whiletheyterminateinastyledifferingfromitmoredecidedlythanwasthecasewith the perfected Early Pointed architecture of France. The early transitionalworksof the royaldomainofFranceappear toanEnglisheyemoreadvancedthan they reallyare,because theRomanesqueof thatdistricthad lessof thosecharacteristics which, to our eye, distinguish the style, than those either ofEnglandorofotherpartsofFrance.Thedesignsofthearchivolts—asM.Violletle Duc says, were sparing in ornament but liberal in mouldings; and if wecompareEarly Pointed exampleswith the precedingRomanesque of the samedistrictofFrance,weshall find that thechangeswerecomparatively slight. InEnglandthechangewasatfirstequallyslight;buttheRomanesquebeingrichincharacteristicdecorations,itfollowsthat,tous,ourearlytransitionappearsmoreRomanesquethanthatofFrance.Compare,forinstance,St.CrosswithSens;theproportionofroundtopointedarchesineachdiffersbutlittle.AtSenseventhevaultingoftheaislesisround,whileatSt.Crossitispointed;nordotheydiffermuchintheirrelationtotheprecedingRomanesqueofthesamedistricts,aswillbeseenbycomparingmysketchofaninternalbayatSenswithsomeIgiveofcorresponding portions of French Romanesque churches; yet Sens, beingabsolutelydevoidofthoseRomanesqueornamentsinwhichSt.Crossissorich,strikesoureyeasbeingmoreadvanced.

Wehad,infact,muchmoretobegotridofinourRomanesquethantheyhadinandabouttheIsleofFrance.

Theremarkableconverseofthisis,thatatthecloseofourtransitionwehadnot only thrown off this excess of Romanesque characteristics, but had gonebeyond the French in altering those of a less palpable kind, and introducingdetails distinct from those of the preceding style. Thus our arch mouldingsbecame far more rich andmore studied in their profile than those in France,which continued to be little more than the repetition of a roll between twohollows, while ours were composed of numerous and beautiful members; theproportionsofourwindowsbecamemuchmoregracefulthanthosecustomarilyusedinFrance,andthebasementmouldingswerebetter.Ontheotherhand,wewerefarlessliberalintheuseofsculpture,andwegeneratedapurelymouldedcapital,whichtheFrenchcanscarcelybesaidtopossess—thus,ifImaysayso,givingourselves thechoiceofaDoric, aswell as aCorinthian, variety inourcolumns;and,finally,werelinquishedthesquareformoftheabacus,andmadeourcapitalsforthemostpartround;sothat,attheendofourtransition,wehad

departed much more widely from our own Romanesque than the French hadfromtheirs;andwhile theearlyFrench transitionalworks lookmoreadvancedthanthoseofacorrespondingstageinEngland,thecaseisreversedatitsclose,when theEnglishexamplesappearmoreadvanced than theFrench,asmaybeseenbycomparingtheinterioroftheGalileeatElywiththewesternportalsofNôtreDame,whichareofsomeyears’laterdate.[30]

IwillclosemyoutlineoftheEnglishtransitionbyreferringtofourexampleswhich mark the limits of its duration, by showing how soon the true EarlyEnglishattaineditsperfectdevelopment.TheexamplesIciteforthispurposearethefollowing:—

Ist. The choir and eastern transepts at Lincoln, which were completed byBishopHughbeforethecloseofthetwelfthcentury,andwhich,thoughofearlycharacter,aredecidedlynottransitional,butdevelopedEarlyPointed.

2d.ThewesternportalsatSt.Alban’s,builtbyWilliamdeCellabetweentheyears1195and1205.[31]

TheseareamongthemostbeautifulEarlyEnglishworksinthekingdom,andhavenoRomanesquereminiscences,noranyFrenchcharacteristics,except thecrochetcapital,whichismagnificentlydevelopedbeneathroundabaci.

3d.TheeasternchapelsatWinchester,builtbyBishopdeLucyabout1204.Thesehavenostrikingfeature,exceptingthattheyarepure“EarlyEnglish,”andevenshowsuggestionsoftracery.

4th.TheGalileeporchatEly,builtbyBishopEustacious,whoheldtheseefromabout1195to1214,andwhichisoneofthemostmagnificentspecimensofthefully-developedstyleinthecountry.[32]Ithasthecrochetcapitalgorgeouslyenriched, not with French, but English conventional foliage; while the archmouldings are filled with the most exquisite foliage of pure Early Englishcharacter.[33]

Thuswe see that though the French preceded us in the commencement oftheirtransition,ourownwas,withverytriflingexceptions,equallynationalwiththeirs,andthatitwasnotonlycompletedassoon,butthatitwascarriedthroughtoastylemoredistinctive,andfullyasnationalasthegloriousEarlyPointedofFrance.

On this subject Iwill only add one remark: Early aswere the first Frenchdevelopments compared with ours; long as was the interval of stagnationbetweenSt.DenisandSt.GermaindesPres;manyaswerethestepsbetweenthestages of the transition in both countries, and many more before we had

developedoutof it thatPointedstyleweknowasthe“EarlyEnglish,”withitslancetwindows and round abaci; thewholewas, nevertheless, carried throughwithin the period ofone lifetime.Not onlywere the transitions of France andEnglandcarriedontoperfectionundercontemporarymonarchs,but thatqueenwho was present at the consecration of Suger’s precocious monument, whocaused that subsequent stagnationbyher frivolity, andwhoperhapswitnessedthe completion of St. Cross during her long captivity at Winchester, actuallylived there long enough to have seen the fully-developedEarlyEnglish ofDeLucy’schapelsintheneighbouringcathedral.

The length towhichmyremarkson theFrenchandEnglish transitionhavebeennecessarilyextendedhascompelledmetolimitwhatIhopedtohavesaidonthatofGermanytoaveryfewobservations.

I have already mentioned the extraordinary tardiness of the Germans inrelinquishingtheirmuch-lovedRomanesque.Iamnotprepared,asinthecaseofFrench and English buildings, to trace out the first appearance of the pointedarch, and I have no doubt that there are numerous instances of its use at anearlierdate;but there isnothing likea transition into thepointed-archstyle tillthecommencementof thethirteenthcentury—after ithadbeencompletedbothin England and France. Nevertheless, the German transition is as distinctlynationalandasevidentanoffspringoftheirownRomanesqueasthatofFranceorEngland; indeed, it issopeculiaras toappear,at firstsight, tohavelittle inconnection with the architecture of either of those countries, and is usuallyspokenofasbeingonlyaslightvarietyuponGermanRomanesque.Letanyonelookata fewof its leadingproductions—asSt.Martin,St.Gereon,anda fewothersatCologne;thechurchesatNeussnearDusseldorf,LimburgontheLahn,Zinzig,orGelnhaussen;thewesternfaçadesatAndernach,Xanten,St.SibaldatNuremberg, and at Halberstadt, the east end of Magdeburg, or at therepresentationsofthecloisters(nowdestroyed)ofSt.Gereon,orAltenberg,oratany of the multitudinous list of German churches of the first quarter of thethirteenth century—and he will at once see that they present as natural andlogicalatransitionfromtheirownnationalRomanesqueastheworksofSugerdo from thatof the royaldomainofFrance.Theuseof thecrochet capitals insomeofthelaterexamplesisthesolitaryinstanceofanydirectimitationofthealreadyperfectedtransitionintheneighbouringcountries.

The greatmisfortune of theGerman transitionwas that it occurred so latethat,beforetheycouldperfectit,theFrenchhadpassedintothesecondstageoftheir developed Pointed, and had worked out the great problem of windowtracery.Theconsequencewas thatGermanpatienceat lengthgaveway;—they

relinquishedtheirtransitionjustastheywereperfectingaPointedstyleoftheirown, and, throwing themselves almost wholly into the hands of the French,passedat one step from theirowncurious andcharacteristic art into the fully-developedstyleofAmiensandBeauvais.

Mr.Fergussonlamentsthisashavingpreventedthedevelopmentofaperfectround-arched style; but it must be recollected that the round-arched style ofGermanyhadbeenalmostentirelyrelinquishedpreviouslytothesuccumbingoftheirnationalarchitecturebeforethedominantstarofFrance:theloss,then,wehavetolamentisnotthatitpreventedamoreperfectround-archeddevelopment,but that it suspended,when on the eve of being perfected, the formation of areallynationalGermanvarietyofthepointed-archedstyle;andthoughtheydidmuch to remedy this, itunquestionably rendered theirarchitecture for thenextcenturyinsomedegreeaGermanversionofFrenchstyle.

Ihave,however,dweltsolonguponthemerehistoryofthetransitionthatIhavehadnotimetoextractanyusefulpracticallessonsfromthechangesinartwehavebeentracingout.What,then,aretheleadinglessonstheysuggest?

Ist,Theyshowushowabsolutemusthavebeenthenecessityingeneratingaperfectarcuatedstyle,tocastawaytheslavery—Iwillnotsayoftheroundarch,foritisoneofthemostgenuineandusefulforms—butoftheadherencetooneunchangingforminthearch,admittingofnovariationinitsproportionofheighttospan,noranychangeofformsuitedtoitsstaticalduties,oritsgeometricaloræstheticalposition.

2d,Theysuggestencouragementinthetaskofworkingoutastylesuitedtotheexigenciesofourday,byshowinghowvastaretheresultstobeanticipatedwhennotonlytheartists,butwhentherulers, thenobles, theecclesiasticsofacountrythoroughlysetthemselvestothetaskwithoneheartandonemind,andwork on together with all their zeal, energy, and perseverance, till they haveinsured the great object of their designs. Would that we could see someequivalenteffortinourowncountryandinourownday!

In the agewe have been treating of, the previous architecture, though in agreat degree original, retained elements derived from the degeneratedRoman,and others belonging to the ages of darkness and barbarismwhich succeeded;but,bytheeffortwehavebeenchronicling,boththeseelementswerethrownoff,andthestylecameforthlikegoldtriedinthefire—pureandrefined.

3d,Wemaylearnalessonofpatiencefromwhatwehavereviewed.Thoseofus who have been endeavouring to generate a style on the basis of thearchitecture of our own family of nations, have been often taunted with theslownessofourprogress.Now,itisscarcelytwentyyearssincewesetearnestly

about the task; and, rapid as the transition in the twelfth century appears, wehave seen an interval of twenty years in its history inwhichwe can trace noprogressatall;which,withallourdeficiencies,canhardlybesaidofusduringacorrespondingperiod.Letus, then, takecourage,andpress forward inspiteoftemporarydiscouragement,andintheendalikesuccessmaycrownourlabours.

4th, It has often been spoken of as a vice to be too fond of studyingtransitional styles. This may possibly be true as regards taking them as ourmodels;butIholdtheverycontrarytobethecaseastoselectingthemasspecialobjectsofstudy.Theyaretheveryperiodsofintellectualenergy—themomentsof themost intense effort of thehumanmind.From themwe learnwhat zeal,whatdetermination,what strengthofwill,whatunityofpurpose,whatpatientperseverancearerequiredinworkingoutagreatgood.Theresultofthemightystrugglewas that, freed from every barbaric or lifeless element, our architectscommenced the next century with their course clearly open before them,everything in their power, and no hindrance to the attainment of their object.Would that we could say this of ourselves, whatevermay be our views as tostyle!

5th,Then,again,inthestyleitselfofthebuildingswehavebeenconsideringthere is much for us to learn. They possess a masculine grandeur, a noblesturdiness of character, an independence of ornament united with a gratefulacceptanceofitsaid,whichwouldsupplyawholesomeelementtoanystyle.Aperfectedstyleisoftendefectiveinthesecharacteristics.Itistoneddowntotooperfect a symmetry—a too nicely weighed balance of parts: the whole maysuggestnothingbutharmony,yetthepartsaretoomuchlostinthewhole;thereistoomuchofthesatietyofattainment,andnotenoughoftheexcitementoftheeffortafterperfection.ThefirstdevelopmentsofPointedarchitectureproduceanexcitementonthemindwhichmoreperfectedexamplesdonotgiveriseto,anditseemstomethattheycontainelementswhichweshouldnotdoamisstoinstilintoourworks,asImayhaveoccasiontosuggestmorepractically, if Ishouldcontinuemycourseoflecturesinthisplace.

6th,ThereissomethingtobelearnedfromthecurioushistoryIhavetracedoutofthere-introductionofoneclassicelement—theCorinthiancapital—atthemomentwhenallotherrelicsofthearchitectureoftheoldworldwereabouttobe thrown off. It is a kind of parallel to the revival of classic literature at thesame period, on which M. Viollet le Duc remarks:—“It is precisely at themoment when the researches into antique letters, sciences, philosophy, andlegislation were pursued with ardour—during the twelfth century—thatarchitectureabandonedthelastremnantsofantiquetradition,tofoundanewart

whose principles are inmanifest opposition to those of the arts of antiquity.”“Arewe,then,”heproceeds,“toconcludefromthisthatthemenofthetwelfthcenturywerenotconsistentwiththemselves?Quitethecontrary;butthatwhichdistinguishestheRenaissanceofthetwelfthfromthatofthesixteenthcentury,isthis—that the former penetrates into the antique spirit, while the latter allowsitselftobeseducedbytheform.”

TheCorinthiancapitalstoodaloneamongthedetailsofancientarchitecture,as being founded on principles of beauty common to all ages. It wasforeshadowedintheworksoftheirearliestpredecessors,theEgyptians,andhadsuggestedtheformsforthecapitalsusedinallsucceedingstyles,whetherbytheByzantines,theSassanians,theSaracens,ortheGothicconquerorsofRome.Itwas, then, consistent that, while about to purge their arts of mere deadrudimentalrelicsofancientart, thisonefeatureshouldberevivedasanucleusfordevelopment.Thesamemaybesaidofthepointedarch,ifthetheorybetrueof its Saracenic suggestion. It had been invented in very early times, perhapsearlierthaneventheroundarch,thoughitsuseswerenotthenappreciated.TheRomanesquebuildershadadoptedmanydeadformsofornamentfromSaracenicandPersianmanufactures,andtheintroductionofthisonereallylivingfeatureatthe moment when the exigencies of the style demanded it (whether the ideaoccurred to them spontaneouslyor by suggestion)was the signal for throwingoff,aseffeteanduseless,alltheOrientalismswhichtheyalreadyhadinuse.

Fromthiswemay learnnot toshrink fromadopting intoourdevelopmentsexternal suggestions from whatever source, provided only that they approvethemselvestooureyeandourintellectaslegitimatesourcesofbeauty,oraidstoconstruction,andascapableofbeingharmonisedwiththestyleweareworkingout. Let us throw them boldly into the fining-pot, and if we are skilfulmanipulators,thegoldwillremainandthedrossbethrownoff.

Anotherthingwemaylearnis,thatthemereprecedenceofonenationintheworking out of a style does not deprive the developments of neighbouringcountriesoftheclaimsofnationality.TheEnglishtransitionbeganalittlelaterthantheFrench,anditis,aswehaveseen,distinctlymarkedinitscharacteranditsresults,sothatnoonecanevermistakeanEnglishbuildingforaFrenchone.

TheGermantransitioncameonaftertheEnglishandFrenchwereperfected,yet is (ifanything)evenmorenational thanourown;while the ItalianGothic,thoughanabsoluteimportation,andoftendefectiveindetail,hasmorestrongly-markednationalcharacteristicsthananyother.[34]

When,however,weusetheterm“national,”wedonotusuallyrefertotheselocal varieties, but rather wish to express the general fact that, in our own

country and amidst the family of European nations, those styles which weregenerated during the rise of our own civilisation are more national than therevivedarchitectureoftheancientworld.Eachcountryhasitsownlocalvariety;but thewhole isonestyle,andthatstyle isourown.Whilerevivingthisstyle,then,thoughwemakeineachcountryourownphaseofitourgroundwork,wemustnotpermiteitherthenarrowprejudicesoffriends,orthetauntsofcritics,toleadusintothefollyofrejectinganyofthereallynobleandvaluableelementsofourstyle,inwhatevercountrytheymayhavebeengenerated.

Iwill closemy tooprotracted lecturewith a quotation from that admirablewriterandaccomplishedarchitectIhavesooftenreferredto.

Hethusdescribestheleadingpracticalprinciplesofthearchitecturetowhichthetransitionwehavebeentracingoutwasthepioneer:—

“From the commencement of the thirteenth century architecture developeditselfafteramethodcompletelynew,inwhichallthepartsdeducedthemselves—theonefromtheother—withanimperiousrigour.Now,itisbythechangeofmethod that revolutions in sciences and arts commence. The constructioncommandstheform;thepiersdestinedtobearseveralarchesdividethemselvesintoasmanycolumnsastherearearches;thesecolumnsareofadiametermoreorlesssubstantial,accordingtotheloadwhichwillrestuponthem,risingsideby side with them to the vaults which they have to sustain, their capitalsassuming an importance proportioned to this charge. The arches are slight orthick, composed of one or more ranges of voussoirs, as dictated by theirfunction. The walls, becoming unnecessary, in great structures disappearcompletely,andarereplacedbywindow-openingsdecoratedwithstainedglass.Everynecessitybecomesamotiveofdecoration.The roofs, the leadingoffofthewater, the introduction of light, themeans of access and circulation to thedifferentstagesofthebuilding—evenlessimportantmatters,suchasiron-work,lead-work, ties,props, themeansofwarmingandventilation,notonlyarenotconcealed,as is sooftendone inourbuildingssince thesixteenthcentury,butare, on the contrary, frankly acknowledged, and contribute, by their ingeniouscombination and the taste which ever presides over their execution, to theenrichmentofthearchitecture.[35]Inabeautifuledificeofthecommencementofthethirteenthcentury,splendidaswemaythinkit,thereisnotanornamenttobespared,foreachornamentisbuttheconsequenceofrequirementsatisfied.”

LECTUREIV.

TheThirteenthCentury.Mediævalarchitectureusuallyclassifiedunderheadsofcenturies—Actualpointsofchangedonotcoincidewiththesedivisions—AuspicesforthedevelopmentoftheEarlyPointedstyle—GreatworksinEnglandandFrance—ArtisticdisturbanceinGermany—ProgressinItaly—Energypervadeseverybranchofart—PerfectedEarlyPointedanaturalgrowthfromRomanesque—Leadingcharacteristics—Columns—Basesof Columns—Capitals—Plan of the abacus—Circular plan—Whence this arose—Moulded capitals—Windows—Bases of buildings—Cornices and foliated bands—Doorways—French and Englishcompared.

INthe twolecturesIdeliveredduring the lastsession,myobjectwas to traceoutthedevelopmentofPointedarchitecturefromtheRomanesquenucleusoftheprecedingage;toshowhowfarthiswastheresultofconstructionalnecessitiesand the natural progression of art, and how far it was aided and furthered byexternal influences; and to illustrate the unity and grandeur of the artisticmovementwhich,insoshortatime,generatedanartatoncesooriginalandsotrulynoble.Myobjectonthepresentoccasionwillbetogiveageneralsketchofthat art when it had arrived at its culminating point, or rather during thatwonderful century through which it reigned triumphant, rejoicing in the fullattainmentoftheobjectofitsstrivings,and,proceedingfromstrengthtostrengthandfrombeautytobeauty,filledthecountriesofWesternEuropewithcreationsat once new to art, and inmany respects nobler than anything theworld hadpreviouslyseen.

ThoughitisconvenienttoclassifyourMediævalarchitectureunderheadsofcenturies,itspointsofchangedonot,inreality,coincidewithsuchadivision.Itwould, perhaps, be nearer to the fact if we classed the last quarter in eachcenturywiththatwhichfollows:thus,inthiscountrytheNormanstylewouldbesupposed,roughlyspeaking,tooccupytheintervalbetween1075and1175;theEarlyPointedstylefromthenceto1275;theMiddleorDecoratedperiodsfrom1275to1375;andsoon.

Onthisviewofthecase,agreatdealofwhatItreatedofinmylastlecturebelongs artistically to the present one, and a portion ofwhat I am embracingundertheheadofthethirteenthcenturywouldbettergowiththefourteenth.As,however,Ishouldwishtobeascomprehensiveaspossibleindefiningtheperiodoftheunimpairedintegrityofthestyle,Igladlyextendittotheveryendofthecentury, and will not quarrel with those who would dip a little into the

succeedingone;for,thoughIpreferthestrengthandboldnessoftheworksoftheearlier part of the century, the style can hardly be regarded as complete ifdeprivedofthemoredelicateproductionswhichcharacteriseitsclose.

InmylastlectureIshowedhow,bothinFranceandEngland,thelastquarterof the twelfth century was occupied in bringing the earlier phase of Pointedarchitecture from a state of mere transition to one of full development andconsistency, and how that the works of this period of especial earnestness inonwardstridingarecharacterisedbyamasculinevigour,scarcelyequalledatanyotherstage.

We have now to view the Early Pointed style at the period of the fullattainmentof its aims, andwhen its endeavourswere rather to amplify and toextenditsmeansthantoconstructastyle.

Thethirteenthcenturycommencedunderthemostfavourableauspicesforthedevelopmentof thenewly-createdarchitecture. InFrance,both thesecularandthe ecclesiastical powers were in the highest state of prosperity; and if inEnglandsuchwasnotthecasewiththeCrown,andwewerecheckedbyabadandmean-spiritedKing,itisclearthatboththeBaronsandtheChurchwereinastateofhighprosperity,for,fromtheveryopeningofthecentury,wefindworksonthegrandestscaletohavebeeneverywhereundertaken.Whetherinthecastle,thepalace,thecathedral,themonastery,ortheparishchurch,wefindthenewly-developedstyletohavebeenputlargelyintopractice,sothatscarcelyabuildingofnote fails to show the impressof theyouthful art.Everygreat churchmusthave its share of it; thus, at Canterbury, though they had just completed theeasternhalfinthestyleofthetransition,thecloisterswereaddedintheperfectedmanner. At York, again, the choir had been rebuilt in the last half of thepreceding century; but the perfected stylemust have its sway, so theNormantransepts were rebuilt in it. At Lincoln the transformation of style hadcommencedunderSt.Hughbefore thecloseof the twelfthcentury,andbefore1280,butsmallvestigesof theNormanstructureremained.AtEly thecenturycommencedwiththebuildingof thewesternporch,whichwasfollowedupbythemagnificenteasternarmofthecathedral.AtSt.Alban’sthegiganticNormanchurchhadnotbeencompletedmuchmorethanhalfacenturybeforeitswesternfaçadewasdemolishedandrecommencedinthenewstyle,inwhichone-halfofthenavepartook; andbefore the thirteenth centurywas finished the choir hadalso been rebuilt. At Durham the Norman church received the magnificentadditionof theChapel of theNineAltars: at Fountains a similar additionwasmade,withanentirelynewchoirandmanynobleappendages.WellsCathedralwasalmostrebuiltinthenewstyle.Indeed,it isscarcelypossibletosingleout

anygreatchurchwhichdoesnotmoreor lessevincetheinfluenceof thegreatarchitectural movement which ushered in the thirteenth century. Its mostcompletework is the cathedral at Salisbury; and among its later creationswemayenumeratetheeasternportionofWestminsterAbbey,thewholeofTinternAbbey,andthegreaterpartoftheoncesumptuouschurchofSt.Mary’sAbbey,atYork;whileitslastdecadeproducedsomeofthemostexquisitegemsofart,suchasthetombsofCrouchback,ofDeLuda,andofArchbishopPeckham;thechapelofElyPlace,Holborn,andtheEleanorCrosses;sothat,takenasawhole,the century can claim most of the noblest, as well as of the most elegant,productionsofEnglishart.

In France its pre-eminence is, if possible, yet more manifest. The centuryopened there under the fully established power of Philip Augustus, the mostpowerfulmonarchwhohadruledFrancesincethedaysofCharlemagne.Inthedaysofhispredecessor theEnglishKinghadgovernedmoreFrenchprovincesthantheKingofFrancehimself;butnowtheEnglish

[Imageunavailable]Fig.87.—ChapelofNineAltars,Durham.

werealmostentirelyexpelled,andthismightymonarchreignedwithoutarival.Inhisdayscommencedanalmostgeneral rebuilding(whollyor inpart)of thecathedrals,exceptingsuchaswereofveryrecentdate.ThewestfaçadeofNôtreDameatParis,thegreaterpartofRouen,ofRheims,ofAmiens,ofCoutance,ofBourges, theeasternhalfofLeMans,andalistfartoolongtobeenumerated,owetheirgrandeurtohisreign,orthoseimmediatelyfollowing.

Towards the middle of the century the same work progressed gloriouslyunder the auspices of St. Louis, and though slackened from actual satietytowards the close of the century, it was not really checked till thecommencementoftheEnglishwar.

As in England, theworks thus produced evincemasculine grandeur of thehighestorderatthecommencement,andthemostdelicatebeautyatthecloseofthecentury,whileduringitsmiddleportionthetwoareunitedintheworksofSt.Louis. InGermany theworks of this century evince great artistic disturbance.The change from the round to the pointed-arch style had been there resisted,while both in France andEngland it had beenworked out tomaturity.At theopeningofthecentury,Germanarchitectureconsistedofahighly-refinedvarietyofRomanesque,withthepartialuseofthepointedarch,chieflywheresuggestedby constructional necessities. This, during the first quarter or more of thecentury, developed itself into an Early Pointed style, strictly German, andholding out promises of great force and originality—promises which werefrustrated by the sudden inroad of French Gothic about 1250, after which,thoughGermany took a course still verymuchher own, itwas one in a greatdegree severed fromher noble early tradition, and emanating from theFrenchgraftratherthanfromtheoriginalstem.

Italy received her Pointed architecture from France and Germany, andmingled it freelywith her Classico-Lombardic traditions. The union producedmanynobleandmany incongruousdevelopments.The lessons theyoffermustbe used with caution; but Italy being the land of ancient art, the land ofsculpture, of painting, of richmarbles, ofmosaicwork, and ofmunicipal andothercivicedifices,thegraftofNorthernartuponsoprolificastockhas,asmayreadily be imagined, produced varieties which the circumstances of Northernnations would have rendered impracticable in its native lands; and thesuggestionstheyoffer,ifjudiciouslyused,arewellcalculatedtoaddcopiousnesstothestyleinthehandsofitsmodernrevivers.OfthisImayhaveoccasionto

saymorehereafter.ThethirteenthcenturywastoMediævalartwhatthePericleanandAugustan

agesweretotheGreekandRoman;andineachcase,thoughwarandbloodshedareinthemselveshostiletoart,therecanbenodoubtthattheexcitementofthehumanmind,resultingfromgreatnationalstruggles,hastendedtoproducethatadvance in art which followed, in one case, the glorious assertion of nationalindependence;inanother,theconquestoftheworld;andinathird,theromanticandunselfisheffortsoftheCrusaders.

Itwasaperiodofdeep-seatedmentalexcitement,ofaprodigiousupstirringof the human intellect. Our learned men at the present day may smile at thequaintandimperfecteruditionoftheseearlyperiodsofourcivilisation,buttheyshould remember that they were our days of youth, ofwarmth, and of risingvigour,whilethemoreperfectedliteratureofourownagemaypossiblybefoundtosuperaddtoitsmaturityafewsymptomsofoldage.

This youthful energy pervaded every branch of art; everything seemed toexperienceanew,agenerous,andvigorous impulse.AllEuropebecamefilledwiththeproductionsofthenewlygeneratedart;everycitybecamearepertoryofnobleandsublimearchitecture,andeverytownandvillagebecamepossessedofproductions equally beautiful, if more modest in their pretensions; while theinterveningcountrywasstuddedoverwithcastlesandmonasticestablishments,inwhichthesamemajesticartdisplayeditselfinever-varyingforms,eachsuitedtomeettheirdifferentrequirements.

Nothingismoredifficultthantodescribeaperfectedart.Mylasttwolecturestraced out the gradual construction of Pointed architecture, and its transitionfromtheprecedingstyle.Thiswascomparativelyeasy;buttodescribeitwhenithadattainedperfectionisfarlessso.

The fact is that there is neither in France nor inEngland any verymarkeddifferencebetweenthestylesduringthelaterperiodofits transition,andwhenperfectedbeyondthatunityandconsistencyofpartswhichindicatematurity.InFrance, particularly, this is the case; for neither had the style there continuedlong to evince its transitional state by the retention of strictly Romanesquefeatures—unless the square abacus can be so designated—nor did it, whenperfected,throwoff,asinEngland,thatonedetailwhichtooureyeseemsarelicof transition. The later transition and the earlier perfected specimens seem inFrancetobethesameart,alittlemoredevelopedandmorehomogeneous,ratherthantohavemanydescribablepointsofdifference.InEnglandthechangeoftheabacusfromthesquaretotheroundformmakesthedistinctionmoremarked,sothat English examples at the opening of the thirteenth century always appear

laterandmoreadvancedthancontemporaryFrenchones.Iinstancedinmylastlecture four early examples of perfectedEarlyEnglish: the eastern transept ofLincoln,completedabout1200; theeasternchapelsatWinchester,about1204;thewesternportalsatSt.Alban’s,finishedabout1205;andthewesternporchorGalilee at Ely, finished about 1214. None of them show any remains oftransitional character, and all having the English round capital in fulldevelopment,appear to theEnglisheyemoreadvancedthansuchworksas thewesternportalsofNôtreDameatParis,whichare,ifanything,somewhatlaterindate.Inthiscountry,infact,theformoftheabacusisthedistinguishingfeaturebetween the transition to the perfected style,while in France there is no suchdistinctiontobefound.Thedifferenceismoreoneoffeeling,whichthepracticaleyeperceivesatoncewithoutbeingabletodefine.

ThoughIspeakoftheEarlyPointedasanewly-generatedart—asitineffectwas—itmustneverbeforgottenthatitisadistinctandnaturalgrowthfromthepre-existingRomanesque.ThemoreIstudyoldexamplesthemoreobviousdoesthis appear. Take either France or England alone, and you may from eitherconstruct,ad libitum, unbrokencatenæ of examples, showing step by step thenaturalandlogicalgrowthofthenewstyleoutoftheold;andthatwithoutanyessential importedelement (for theByzantine capital,whichwas theparentoftheGothicone,wasanaccidental,thoughahappy,importation).

ThisprogressivegrowthwasbutthepracticalrealisationofthreegreataimstowardswhichtheRomanesquearchitectswereeverstriving—theperfectingoftheir arcuated and vaulted construction, the increase of the altitude of theirproportions,andthegeneraladdingofrefinementandelegancetotheirdetails.Thus,ifyoutaketheinternalbayofaNormancathedral,andsimplysetyourselfthetaskofincreasingitsheightinagivenproportion,theresultwillbeaGothicbay, for the arches cannot participate in the increased elevation withoutbecoming pointed. If the details are further refined, it becomes an ordinarytransitionaldesign;andif theprocessiscarriedonalittlefarther, itbecomesaperfectedEarlyPointedwork—thedistinctionbetween transitionandperfectedEarlyPointedbeingmerelythecarryingonoftheprocessbywhichtheformerwasgeneratedoutofRomanesque.Thisfact,whichallwholookcloselyintoitmust see, was what led a talented writer to say that Early Pointed was onlyRomanesque improved. Hemeant this as an argument against it as comparedwith the still succeeding styles; but I confess, formy own part,while feelingstronglythetruthoftheobservation,andhighlyappreciatingtheimportanceofsome of the subsequent developments, I do not the less admire the gloriousproductionsoftheEarlystylefromseeinginthemtheevidencesofthevigorous

stockfromwhichtheyhavesprung.[36]It will be seen, by enumerating the leading characteristics of Pointed

architecture,thatthegreatmajorityofthemwerealreadyperfected,or,atleast,broughttothatreasonableandconsistentstateofdevelopmentwhichstopsshortofexcessandexaggeration,atthecommencementofthethirteenthcentury.

The pointed arch had obtained universal predominance, though withoutinvolving the rejection of the semicircular or the plain segment, wherecircumstancescalledforthem;thegeneralpredominanceoftheverticallinewasacknowledged, without running into the excess of underrating the horizontal;lofty and aspiring proportions prevailed, though not to the extent ofexaggeration, and without unreasonably asserting their claims in works of ahumbler class; the subdivision of arches into orders, and the clustering of thepillars, so as to satisfy the eye that each member of the arch was severallysupported,hadarisenduring theRomanesqueperiod,andwasnowcarriedoutstillmore systematically andwith greater elegance; and the systemofmakingthebasesandcapitals face in thedirectionof the insistingarch-rib,whichhadalso arisen early, was (in France at least) very generally adhered to. Thedistinction between constructional and decorative pillars—one of the greatcharacteristicsof theGothicstyle,bothRoundandPointed—wascarried to itsfullest extent; the vaulting system was perfected, though retaining its normalsimplicity; and the corresponding system of buttress (solid or arched) andpinnacle,which are the necessary accompaniments of a perfect arcuated style,had been brought to perfection; the continuity of line was acknowledgedsufficientlytosuggestafeelingofnaturalgrowthofthepartsonefromanother,from the bases of the shafts to the bosses of the vaulting, but without thatsacrificeofforceandofallsalientpointswhichbecametheviceoflaterstyles.

The principle of rendering the useful features ornamental was fullydeveloped; as an instance of it—the doorways, the only parts of the exteriorwhichmustofnecessitybeseenfromcloseathand,wererenderedmagnificentbeyondallformerprecedent,andbecamethevehiclesofnoblesculpture,andthegreatexponentsoftheobjectsofthebuilding,whetherreligiousorsecular.Thewindows now became great characteristic objects, not only from their richlypainted glass within, but as leading architectural features, both within andwithout. The bell towers became glorious structures, rendering the citiesconspicuousthroughoutthewholesurroundingdistrict,andmakingeveryvillageadistinctandbeautifulpointinthelandscape.Thesameprincipleobtainedinallsecular structures. The castles of the nobility became truly noble structures,glorious for the stern grandeur of their external aspect, and for the massive

beautyoftheir internalarchitecture; thegatesanddefencesofcitiespartookofthesameseveregrandeur;whilethestreetfronts,thetownhalls,andothercivicbuildings,displayedarchitecturalcharacteristics,modestorgrand,assuitedtheirseveral purposes. In Italy, wheremunicipal institutions weremore developed,noble street palaces were erected; and everywhere the architecture, whetherviewedinthemassorinitsdetails,wassuited,asbyanunerringinstinct,totheobjectsonwhichitwasexercised.

The decorative system of the architecture had also been brought to greatperfection.Themouldingswererefinedwithoutlosingboldnessorstrength—infact, were strong or delicate, as suited their position; the foliated carving hadarrived at very high perfection, and was of a kind perfectly new—themagnificentcreationoftheartisticmind;sculpturewasoftenprofuselyusedinconnectionwitharchitecture,andifnotofthatperfectlystudiedsymmetrywhichsatisfiestheacademiccritic,itevincesaboldnessofconception,aquicknessofinvention,andanunaffectedgrandeurofsentiment,whichourmodernsculptorswould do well to emulate, while it is eminently suited, by its rigid lines andsevereforce,toarchitecturalpurposes.

It would be absurd to attempt, in a single lecture, to give any detaileddescriptionofthearchitectureofthisgreatperiod;norisitnecessary,asnostyleissofamiliartothosewhoseattentionhasbeenatallturnedtosuchsubjects;Iwill,however,takeafewofitsleadingpoints,andcallattentiontosomeoftheircharacteristics.

IwillbeginwiththeColumn.InnofeatureisthedifferencebetweenClassicandGothicarchitecturesostronglymarkedasinthecolumn.Intheformer,onegeneralideaaloneprevailed—theroundshaftwithacapital,andwithorwithoutabase.Inthelatterthisnormaltypeisequallyadmissibleandequallyhonoured,but,inadditiontoit,analmostendlesslistofformsareintroduced.Inthefirstplace the round column is converted at pleasure into the octagonal or otherpolygonalform—thisisamerevarietyofthenormaltype;theneithertheroundorthepolygonisflankedbyfoursmallershafts,attachedordetached,andthesesubsidiaryshaftsmaybeincreasedinnumber,subordinatedonetoanother,bothinsizeandsalience,andmaybeallattached,alldetached,or theattachedanddetachedshaftsmaybeusedalternatelyorinanyotherorderinthesamepillar.

Then, again, instead of the cylindrical pillar, we may have four cylindersunited in one, and these may in their turn be made the nucleus round whichdetached or attached shafts may be grouped: or we may have two or moreseparate cylindricalmain shafts carrying the load, andmay group subordinateonesroundthem;andagain,wemaytakeotherformsofnucleus—asthesquare,

the canted square, or a pierwith receding orders—and place our shafts roundthem;and,finally,wemayformgroupsinwhichnospecificformofnucleusisto be traced, but which consist of shafts arranged with reference to thesuperincumbentarchalone.

The number of changeswhichmaybe rung on these varieties of pillar areabsolutely endless, though it is not desirable to indulge toomuch in themoreintricate formsofgrouping, but, as ageneral rule, tokeep to formswhich arenaturally suggested by the duties the pillar is designed to perform. Whendetached subsidiary shafts are used, it is somewhat unnatural to joint them intheir lengthwithout introducingsomevisiblemeansof tying themto themainpillarwithin. This necessity gave rise to the use of themoulded band,whichformssobeautifulafeatureinthepillarsofthisperiod.Itissometimesmadeofbrass,butmoreusuallyofstoneormarble.

ThebasesofcolumnsthroughouttheRomanesqueperiodweremostusuallyfoundedonsometraditionalvarietyoftheAtticbase.Theresemblanceisoftenobscure,butinmanycasesveryclose.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.88. Fig.89.—St.Stephen’s,Caen.

TowardstheendoftheRomanesqueperiodverygreatattentionbegantobepaidtothesectionsofbasemouldings,andintransitionalworkstheyareoftenmorebeautifulthanatanyotherperiod.Thedifferencebetweenthesebasesandthe ordinary Attic base is of the same kind which distinguishes Greek fromRomanmoulding.Itisanextremedelicacyofcurve,thesubstitutionofellipticalsections for circular, and a wonderfully studious grouping of the hollows,rounds,andarrises,soastoproducearefinedanddelicatecontrastandgradationof light and shade, without destroying the strength necessary to the mainsupporting feature. In this they showed a high appreciation of what is in allarchitectureadifficultproblem—theunitingtheconflictingclaimsofthelowerpart of a building, as on the one hand demanding the greatest strength ofcharacterassupportingthewholestructure,andontheotheradelicatefinish,asthepartopentotheclosestinspection.

The bases have usually onemore part than aClassic base, having inmostcasesaprojectingsub-plinth,eitherchamferedormoulded.Inearlier instancestheplinthand sub-plinthareboth square inplan; andhere, again,weobtainafeature of great beautywhich antique architecture did not possess. Imean thebeautifulleavesorbossesoffoliagewhichspringoutofthelowertorustocovertheprojectinganglesoftheplinth.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.90.—Veselay. Fig.91.—Westminster.

This projection is often reduced by making the torus overhang the squareplinthinthecentreofitssides,andalittleprojectingcorbelisoftenputtocarrythisoverhanging,aswellastheleaftocovertheanglesoftheplinth.

Atalaterperiodthesquareplinthgavewaytotheoctagonal,andinEnglandandNormandyoftentotheroundform.

Inearlyworkthebasesoftenfacedaboutdiagonallyasthecaps,toindicatethedirectionofthearch-ribstobesupported.[37]

InFrancetheellipticalsectionofthelowertoruscontinuedmuchlongerthaninEngland, and the upper toruswas often converted into a kind of ogee, andboth in France andEngland the scotiawas usually very narrow and deep—somuchso,indeed,astoholdwater.InEnglandanotherkindofbaseisfrequent,inwhichabeadissubstitutedforthescotia.

[Imageunavailable]Figs.92,93.WestminsterAbbey.

Insomerichworktheplinthisclothedwithfoliage.I have said a good deal of the history of the capitals of the Early Pointed

period in my last lecture. I particularly showed that about the period of thetransition a great change took place in France in the form of the capitals, inwhichtheoldRomanesqueformwasalmostuniversallyabandonedinfavourofoneofadistinctlyByzantineorigin,whichIsuggestedcame,inallprobability,by way of Venice, at the time of the erection of the Byzantine churches inAquitaine; and that though the domical construction of churches then broughtinto France does not appear to have extended northward of the Loire, theByzantinecapitaloftheCorinthianesquetypewasadoptedquiteintothenorthofFrance,andbecametheparentoftheexquisitecapitalsandfoliagewhich,inthenext generation, pervaded the architecture both of France andEngland, and, alittlelater,ofGermany.

Ialsoshowedthatthepeculiarstalkorcrocket,whichbecamesoconstantafeature in early Gothic capitals, took its origin from a plain unraffled leaffrequent in the Byzantine capitals,[38] which in their turn may have beensuggested by unfinished leaves, which are of very common occurrence incapitalsofthatperiod.

During the first half of the thirteenth century these crocket capitals werebroughttoveryhighperfection,thestalkorcrocketeitherappearinginitsmostnormalform,orbeingmoreorlessclothedandconcealedbyfoliage.Inthelattercase it forms a strong background to the leaves, giving them the apparentstiffness and strength necessary to their position. These usually turn over in abunch of foliage,which is distinct from the leaveswhich clothe them, so thatthere isno inconsistency,but the reverse, in theclothing foliagebeingnatural,while the terminal bunch which completes the crocket is conventional.[39]Towards the middle of the century the natural and conventional foliage wereverymuch used together, the former being often a light playful overlaying ofstrongerleadingforms;butafterwards,inFrenchwork,andstilllaterinEnglish,naturalfoliagebecametheruleandconventionaltheexception.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.94.—Rollestone,Notts. Fig.95.—Chartres.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.96.—SouthwellMinster.

Thecapitalswhichprevailedduringthiscenturyformthemostmagnificentserieswhichanystyleofarchitecturecanboast.Whetherthefoliageisnatural,conventional,orbothunited, theartisticpowerevinced is trulydelightful; andwhen it is recollected that no two capitals are ever found exactly alike, thefertilityofinventiontheydisplayisperfectlywonderful.

Itwouldbehopelessinsuchalectureasthistoattempttogothrough,eveninthemostcursorymanner,theendlessvarietiesofcapitals—fromthestupendousmasses of noble foliage which crown the apsidal columns at Rheims, whosesingle shafts arenearly six feet indiameter, to thoseof thedelicate colonetteswhichdecoratethemullionsofwindows.Thisonefeaturealonewouldformanample subject for an entire lecture, or almost for a series of lectures. I willconfine my present remarks to the great characteristic differences whichdistinguishFrenchfromEnglishcapitalsduringthethirteenthcentury.

Thisgreatdistinction lies in theplanof theabacus; forwhile inFrance thesquare formof thepreceding style continued, theEnglish architects very soonsubstitutedthecircularplan.

Itisacuriousquestionhowandwhenthisarose.Inbothcountriestheroundabacuswas,insomeinstances,usedfromanearlyperiod;butthiswaschieflyongreat cylindrical columns, with low capitals, such as those in the nave ofGloucesterCathedral,thougheveninFrancetheroundformoccasionallyoccurstosubordinateshafts,asatSt.Omer;but,asageneralrule,bothcountriesusedthe square or the angular form till late in the transition, when the Englishcommenced the free adoption of the round, first alongside of the other, andafterwardstoitsalmostentireexclusion.

SoearlyastheerectionofthecryptundertheTrinityChapelatCanterbury,byWilliamtheEnglishman,about1180,wefindtheroundmouldedcapital;andinthealtarrecessesintheeasterntranseptwefindtheroundabacusonfoliatedcapitals;though,Iconfess,Idoubtitsbelonging,inthislast-mentionedinstance,totheoriginalwork.

Muchdifferenceofopinionnowexistsastothecomparativemeritsofthesetwo forms. By some the square abacus is assumed to be the great symbol offorce and vigour; while by others it is said to be inconsistent with the trueprinciples of Gothic architecture. Perhaps the question might be solved bydecidingthatbotharebeautiful,bothvigorous,andbothconsistentwithGothic

architecture, and, therefore, that both should be admitted on equal terms asportionsofourgeneralmatériel.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.97.—St.Quentin,Aisne.

The advantages of the angular abacus are, that it allows of the capitalsindicatingthedirectionofthearch-ribs,andassumingirregularformssuggestedby them (Fig. 97),which the round form forbids; that it allows of the use ofsquareorders,and,consequently,ofsimplerandmoreeffectivearchmouldingsthan can be placed in the round abacus, on which the mouldings have to besomewhat crushed in their section, and their parts multiplied, to bring themnicelyontotheroundsupport;andthattheanglesindicatethedirectiontowardswhichthemainstalksofthefoliageshouldtend.Therecanbenodoubt,onthewhole, that itproduces themostvigorouseffect;and Imustpleadguilty to anun-Englishpreferenceforit,thoughIalsogreatlyadmireitscompetitor,whoseadvantages are the beautiful formwhich the roundmoulding takes as seen inperspectivefrombelow,anditslessdisturbanceofthecontinuityofline.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.98.—CapitalsfromCryptunderTrinityChapel,Canterbury.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.99.—Capital.Salisbury. Fig.100.SectionsofmouldedCapitals,St.Albans.

Another great characteristic of English architecture is the moulded(unfoliated)capital.ThisisalmostwantinginFrencharchitecture;andIstronglycontend that the inventionof this capital,whichwemay almost claim for ourowncountry, isoneofextremevalue,andsupplieswhatwouldbeotherwiseagreat hiatus in the style. Among its earlier instances is that I have alreadymentionedin thecryptatCanterbury(Fig.98). It is there in ratheraplainandnormal form, nearly resembling a capital denuded of its foliage, but with thespace below the abacus and the bell somewhat increased, for the sake ofstrength. The fully-developed moulded capital differs from this in having aconsiderable overhanging moulding, which is the substitute for, and therepresentativeof, the foliage of the richer capital (Figs.99, 100). Though thisoverhangingmoulding isuniform in type, thevarieties it assumes indetail areendless, and the groups of mouldings in these capitals are among the mostbeautiful in the whole range of Gothic architecture; and the addition of thisbeautifulfeaturetoourrichtreasuryofformsofcapitalisofinfinitevalue.

[Imageunavailable]Figs.101,102.—Capitals,WestminsterAbbey.

Theabacusofthemouldedcapitalsisnotnecessarilyround.Therearemanyinstancesofitsbeingsquare,andstillmoreofitsbeingoctagonal—aformwhichiscontinuedthroughthelaterperiodsofEnglisharchitecture.

I ought to have mentioned that in its normal condition the abacus is in aseparate stone from the rest of the capital, though convenience frequentlysuggestsitsbeinginone.

Whenmarbleshafts,however,areused,itisfarbetterthatthesamematerialbeusedalsofortheabacus.

Next in importance to the column as a characteristic of the style,wemustplacetheWindow.Indeed,ithasgenerallybeenmadetotaketheprecedenceofit, and is no doubt that by which the date of a building is most readilyascertainedanditsstyledefined.

The Romanesque windows were simply openings with round heads, thejambs and arches being either perfectly plain, moulded, with or withoutenrichment,orthejambsshafted.Thesewindowsweremostusuallyisolated,butwerehereandtheregroupedintocouplets,triplets,etc.,ormadetoformportionsofcontinuousarcading.

Intheearlydaysofthetransitionthewindowsremainedunaltered,otherwisethanastothegeneralrefinementoftheirdetails.Lateronthearchesweremadepointed, and their proportions somewhat elongated; and even in the fully-developedEarlyPointedstyle—properlysocalled—thewindowdifferslittleinprinciple from that of the Romanesque period, though, in fact, it assumes awidely different form, through its carrying towards their ultimate results theprinciplesofgroupingbegunduringthepreviousstyle,andthoseofrefinementandelongationincidenttothetransition.

It is in carrying out these principles to a still greater extent that the EarlyPointedofEnglanddiffersfromthatofFrance.Itisreallythesamestyle,andnoimportantfeaturecanbepointedoutintheonecountrywhichisnottobefoundin the other; but just as theGermans, by dwelling longer on theRomanesquestyle,rendereditmorerefinedandperfectthanelsewhere,sotheEnglish,bythecontinuedretentionoftheunmullionedwindow,systematiseditsuseinamannernotequalledinothercountries.Iseenodifferenceofprincipleinthefenestrationof theEarlyFrenchand theEarlyEnglishPointedstyles: inboth theprinciplewasthedecorationandcombinationofsinglelights.NordoIseethatinEngland

thiswas done in amanner essentially differing in any respect fromwhatwascommoninFrance.ThegreatdifferencewasthefargreaterwidthoftheFrenchopenings,whichoftenrendered theirwindows inelegant inproportion,while itofferedanoblefieldforstainedglass.ThecharacteristicoftheEnglishwindows,on the other hand, was narrow and tall proportions, and a greater amount ofenrichment of the jambs and arches, thoughnone of these are, by anymeans,constant features. Sometimes we find in English works lightness carried to aviciousextreme,asinthebeautifulbutfraileasterntranseptatWorcester;thoughinamajorityof instancesitretainsamasculinefirmnessandsolidity,as intheeastendofWhitby.

Timewould failme to illustrate themagnificent combinationsof this earlyclassofwindow tobe found in cathedrals andmonastic churches—as theeastendofEly, thewestatLlandaff,or thenorth transeptatYork;norwould itbepossible to enumerate the simple and impressivevillage churches towhich, intheir humbler forms, thoughwith equal artisticmerit, they lend such a charm.ThestyleistoowellknowninEnglandtoneedminutedescription,anditsmeritstoofullyacknowledgedtoneedenforcementfromme.

I will rather proceed to consider that great invention which may beconsidered to complete the series of developments which constituted Pointedarchitecture:Imeanthemullionedandtraceriedwindow;notthatIconsideritasin all points better than its predecessor, nor that in our own revival it shouldsupersede it;but that,asamatterof fact,Gothicarchitecturewouldhavebeenimperfectwithoutit.LikealmosteveryotherfeatureofPointedarchitecture,thetraceriedwindowgrewoutoftheRomanesque.

In all periods of Romanesque we find occasionally two or more archedopeningscomprisedunderoneenclosingarch.Thearrangementismorefrequentinbelfrywindowsandtriforiumopeningsthanelsewhere,butoccursinordinarywindows, especially in secular buildings. The space intervening between thelarge arch and the two or more placed below it was, even as early as this,occasionallypiercedwithcirclesorotherformsofopening.Here,then,wehavethe elements of the mullioned window before even the introduction of thepointedarch. In the same situations it graduallydeveloped itself, stepby step,duringtheEarlyPointedperiod,sothatwehaveintriforiumarcadesandinotherpositionsaprettyfulldevelopmentofwhatiscalledplatetracerybeforeitsusebecamefrequentforordinarywindows.ThecasewasprettymuchthesamebothinFranceandEngland, thoughon thewhole the loveofplacing twoopeningsunderonearchwasgreaterinFrance;thus,weseeintheaislesatChartrestwoplainlightsunderonearchwithacircularopening,andabove,intheclerestory,

a very large circle in the headwith somewhat complex subordinate piercings.Thesame is thecaseatBourges,where three lightsareoftencomprisedunderonearch,withasinglecircleinthehead.

Thenext great elementwhich aided in producing tracerywindowswas thewheel,orotherrichly-piercedcircularwindow.This,again,originatedundertheRomanesquestyle,aswemayseeatBarfrestonandelsewhere. It is, in fact, averycloseapproachtotracery,andwhenplacedinthespacebetweencomprisingandcomprisedarches,italmostcompletesthechange.Allthatiswantedisthepiercing of the intervening spaces in formswhose outlines are parallel to themainpiercings,soastoformwhatProfessorWilliscallsbartracery.Thiswas,Ifancy,commencedinFrance—thoughthereareveryearlytracesofitinEngland—andwasdoneatfirstinapartialandclumsymanner,asinsomewindowsatLeMansandTours,butsoonwassystematised.

IdonotseethatinanyofthepreviousstepstheFrenchwereinadvanceoftheEnglisharchitects,butinthislaststepIthinktheywereso,andthisledthemto amuch earlier abandonment of the singlewindowand its combinations; sothat for some time the French were using tracery windows, while we wererenderingmoreperfecttheunmullionedsystem—notfromwantofknowledgeoftheother,butratherfromapreferenceforasysteminwhichwewereproducingmorebeautifulcombinationsthanourneighbourshadattained.

ItisnotaveryprofitablequestiontoinquirebyhowmanyyearstheFrenchmayhavebeen in advanceofus in this development, and it is so exceedinglydifficulttogetatpositivedatesoftheerectionofbuildingsineithercountry,thatitwouldbeimpossibleifdesired.Thefact,nodoubt,is,thatformanyyearsthetwokindsofwindowwerecontemporaneous.Thus,traceriedwindowsmayhavebeen in use at Rheims and Amiens, while the older kind was being used atBourgesandChartres.

It is said that in England the fully-developed bar tracerywas first used inWestminster Abbey, which was commenced in 1245; but this is merely anassumption;anditisclearthatitwasusedintheeasternpartofSt.Paul’s,apartofwhichwasconsecratedin1240.TheeastwindowofNetleyAbbeylooksveryearly,butIdonotknowitsrealdate,butbelieveitissaidtohavebeenfinishedin1249;whiletheeasternwindowsatLincolnlooktoothoroughlydevelopedtobeveryearlyspecimens,thoughknowntohavebeenerectedbetween1256and1280.Inanycasethechangehadfullyestablisheditself inEnglandduringthethirdquarterofthecentury.[40]

There can be no doubt that, whichever class of window we prefer, thisinventionwasofimmensepracticalutility.Itrenderedpossiblewhatwasnever

attainedbefore—theformationofwindowsofanywidthwhichmightbewanted,withoutinjurytothebeautyofthebuilding.Thisis,infact,thegreatuseofthemullion, to enableyou tousewiderwindows thanyou couldusewithout it—indeed, to render theirwidth unlimited; and the consequence of the inventionwastheintroductionofwindowsinsomecasesnotlessthan30feetormoreinwidth,and60or70inheight,andthatwithoutappearingtomakeanyunseemlygapinthewalling,whichwouldotherwisehavebeenthecasewithawindowofone-sixthofthesize.

After the systemwas once introduced, it seems to me to have been oftenmorebeautifullycarriedoutinEnglandthaninFrance;indeed,IhardlyknowinFrancewindows of equal beautywith those atLincoln,Tintern, or St.Mary’sAbbeyatYork.

At a later period excess of tracery became the great vice of the style, butwhile kept within bounds, it unquestionably was a great element to itsperfection; and though it must always be remembered that a building of anyamount of beauty and dignity can be designedwithout it, itwould be placinguponourselvesaveryfoolishrestrictionif,merelyfromanindividualpreferencefor theearlierandsternerstyle,wewere todebarourselvesfromtheuseofsoconvenientandreasonableanelement.

[Imageunavailable]Figs.103,104,105,106,107.—BasemouldsofBuildings.

One feature inwhich the Englishworks of this period appear tome to bepeculiarly excellent is the basemoulds; I do notmean of columns, but of thebuildingitself.IhaveneverseenanyinFrancetoequalmanyofourowninthequality of appearing eminently fitted to support thewhole structure, or in theartisticarrangementoftheirparts.

Against this we may balance on the other side the French cornices andfoliated bands, which are one of their most beautiful characteristics. Theyusually consist of two courses—a hollow projecting moulding containing thefoliage,cappedbyaweathermoulding—theequivalentrespectivelyof thebellandabacusofthecapital;indeed,inmanycasesformingthecontinuationofthecapitalsofwindowjambsacross the interveningpiers.Wehave inmanycasescornicesequivalenttothese—asatYork,Howden,andthenaveofLichfield;buttheyare,onthewhole,amuchlessEnglishthanFrenchfeature.Thefoliagetheycontainisusuallyofgreatbeauty,andeminentlysuitedtoitsposition.

The great glory, however, of the French churches is their doorways; andbeautifulasare thoseofourown, theymakenokindofpretension toviewiththoseofourneighboursinmagnificence.Inthisrespectthearchitectsofthetwonationsseemtohavegoneonquitecontraryprinciples;fortheFrench,eveninbuildings on a secondary scale, introduced portals of prodigious size andextreme richness,while theEnglish, even in buildings on a grand scale, oftenmadetheirdoorwaysveryinconspicuous.Compare,forinstance,thefaçadesofAmiensandofWells:inonetheportalsareeverything,sothatyoucanrecollectlittle else; in the other they are nothing, and you can scarcely recollect theirexistence;while, in the façade above, theEnglish example is the richer of thetwo; and the illustrative sculpture which in the one case is expended on theportals, is in theotherdiffusedover theentire front. InEnglandamagnificentportal is of rare occurrence; in France one looks for it as a thing of course.NothingmoregloriousthanthegreatFrenchportalscanbeconceived:theloftyanddeeply-receding jambsaredivided in theirampleheight into twoportions,thepedestalorbasementofwhichisrichlydecoratedeitherwithdiaper-workorwith sculptured medallions, or, as at Amiens, with both; and the upper stagecontains colossal figures of apostles or other holymen of old,who appear toviewwith severeand solemnbenignity the enteringcrowd, and to express,bythegravityoftheircountenances,thecaution,“Keepthyfootwhenthougoesttothe house of God.” In the tympanum are sculptured scenes from Scripture

history,thelivesofsaints,ourLordsurroundedbytheevangelisticsymbols,orperhaps theawfulscenesof thefinalJudgment;and themouldingsof thearchare probably filled with angelic figures, as if the guardians of the faithfulworshippers;whilethisimpressivearrayofimageryisplacedinasettingofthenoblest and most perfect architecture, and that on a scale well suited to thesublimityofthesentimentsexpressed.

The portals of Nôtre Dame at Paris, of Amiens, and of Chartres, may beinstancedasamongthemoststrikingexamples;butallgreatchurchesoftheendof the twelfth and of the thirteenth century have the same truly gloriousapproaches,well calculated to solemnise themindsof those enteringby them,andtopreparethewayfortheoverwhelmingdignityoftheinterior.

ThenearestapproachwhichwehaveinEnglandtothisclassofdoorwayisthesouthentrancetothe

[Imageunavailable]Fig.109.—WesternPortals,southentrance,St.Alban’sCathedral.

easternpartofLincoln—atrulynobleportal;[41]buton thewhole, thoughofadifferent class, the most dignified approach to any English cathedral is thewesternporchofEly.[42]

St.Alban’s has had threemagnificentwestern entrances. The smaller oneshavebeenwonderfulworksofart,thoughnowruined.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.108.—St.Alban’sCathedral.OrnamentbetweenShafts,WesternPortals.

ThenorthporchesofSalisburyandWellsareverynoble;indeed,manyofourgreatchurcheshaveportalswhichweshoulddeemmagnificent,couldweforgetthose of France, andwhichwe know to be eminently beautiful, however theymaybesurpassedinmagnificence.

In almost all other parts the English cathedrals of this age are often richerthan the French, as in the clustering of the columns, the richness of the archmouldings, the beauty of theirwall arcading, the importance and detail of thetriforium,etc.;while,onthecontraside,theyhavetoyieldgreatlytotheFrenchin altitude, and in many cases in general scale, as well as in the amount ofsculpturewithwhichtheyareenriched.

My object in drawing these comparisons is not awish to lay any claim tosuperiority for either, nor to shake the claims of our neighbours to generalprecedence, as I view Paris to have been, in a certain sense, the centre andmetropolisofMediævalart.Itisrathertoshowthattheseweretheartsofagreatperiod, notof a singlepeople; that allwere labouring together in perfecting agreat and glorious development of art, each knowing well what others weredoing, each according to their means taking care to keep up to the standardalready attained, and to add to thepublic treasurydevelopments of their own;each making it his great endeavour to do his own work as well as it couldpossibly be done according to themeans at command, and each people vyingwithitsneighbours,notinthespiritofpettyjealouscompetitorsforpraise,buteachstriving,withanobleandgloriousemulation,todotheutmostinitspowertofurtherthegreatartwhichallhadcontributedingenerating.

Having given, in this and my two preceding lectures, a rough and veryimperfect sketchof the rise andperfectingofGothic architecture, it is notmyintention any further to pursue the subject historically; but—assuming thethirteenth century to be the great period of the style—I should wish, in anyfuturelecturesImaygive,toillustrateanddiscussitsprinciples,andthemanysectionsintowhichitdividesitself,whethergeographicalvarietiesortheleadingfeaturesofthebuildingsthemselves.Imaynotbeabletocarryoutthisintention,butinmynextlecture,thelastofthepresentsession,Ipurpose—afteralludingto some of the most remarkable works of the period and with some slightdescriptionoftheircharacteristics,andaftercallingattentiontotheall-pervadingcharacterof theartas itboreuponsecularandotherbuildings,upon thealliedarts,andupontheordinaryartsofcommonlife—tofounduponwhatwehave

hadinreviewbeforeussomegeneralsuggestionsastothepracticallessonsweoughttolearnfromwhatwehavebeenconsidering,andtheinfluenceitoughttohaveuponourownartisticpractice.

LECTUREV.

TheThirteenthCentury—continued.St.Saviour’s,Southwark—ChoirofTempleChurch,London—ChapelatLambeth—WestminsterAbbey—ItsItalianmosaicwork,monuments,andancientreredos—ChapelofSt.Ethelreda,Holborn—St.Alban’sAbbey—Priory Church, Dunstable—Stone Church near Gravesend—Waltham Cross—Jesus Chapel,Cambridge—ElyandPeterboroughCathedrals—WarmingtonChurch—WestWaltonAbbey—CrowlandAbbey—St. Mary’s and All Saints, Stamford—Ketton, Grantham, and Frampton Churches—LincolnCathedral—Southwell Minster—Newstead Abbey—York Cathedral—St. Mary’s Abbey, and St.Leonard’sHospital,York—SkeltonChurch—BeverleyandRiponMinsters—Fountains,Rivaulx,Whitby,Kirkham, and Guisborough Abbeys—Chapel of the Nine Altars, Durham—Hexham and DryburghAbbeys—ChapelofHolyrood—ElginandGlasgowCathedrals—FurnessAbbey—Southernexamples—Mostgreatchurches inFrancevaulted,notso inEngland—Universalexcellenceofworkmanship from1175 to 1400—Domestic architecture of France,Germany, Italy, andEngland—Influence of thirteenthcenturyworkonourartisticpractice.

INmy last lecture Igaveahastyoutlineof thedevelopedarchitectureof thisgreatperiod.

I will now endeavour to give an equally hasty glance at some of itsmoremarked creations, beginning—as in duty bound—at home. Their number,however, issogreat, thatone isperplexed toknowwhere tobegin,or inwhatorder to take them. Perhaps the most profitable way will be to imagine thestudent to live in London, and to commence with the works of this century,whichhemaystudywithinawalkofhishome.

Letusbegin,then,withthechurchofSt.Saviour—formerlySt.MaryOverie—inSouthwark.

WhenIfirstknewthisChurchthewholeofitwasstanding:externally,itistrue,theaspectitpresentedwasnotverypleasing,forithadbeencasedalmostthroughoutwithredbrick,andtheLadyChapelwaslittleelsethanaruin.Thechoirwasthenincourseofrestoration.Theinteriorwasamostnoblestructure,and was almost perfect, and nearly all of this century, though some smallportionswestwardwereearlier,andthesouthtranseptpossiblyalittlelater.Thewholewasonaverysymmetricaldesign,thatofthenavebeingverymuchthesamewiththechoir.

Its character may easily be judged of from what remains. It was noblymassiveandgrand,notof loftyproportions,butstillsuchastosatisfytheeye.The pillars were alternately round and canted squares, flanked with attachedshafts; the triforium consisting of arcades, interrupted only by the vaulting

shafts. At the east end is a beautiful Lady Chapel, vaulted on light clusteredpillars.

The restoration of the choirwas carried out by the lateMr.GeorgeGwilt,aidedbyhissons;anditisimpossibletoowarmlytopraisethezealandardourwith which they pursued the work, their study of the style then so littleunderstood,or theuntiringpains they took to render their restorationaccurate.Alltheseardentloversofancientartarenowdeceased,andIfeelamelancholypleasureinbearingwitnesstotheirmerits.Iwasintimatelyacquaintedwithoneof the sons, and never did Imeet amanmore enthusiastically devoted to thestyle on which his artistic education had been founded. He absolutely adoredeverythingwhichwasEarlyEnglish;and,incarryingoutrestorations—inoneofwhichheaidedme—sofaithfullydidhereproducethewholework,thatnothingcouldinducehimtoaltereventhepositionsofthejointingoftheashlarwork.

ThepainswhichMr.Gwilttookinrestoringthechoirdisgustedtheheartlessparishioners, who, on proceeding to the transepts, placed the work in otherhands; but, on the Lady Chapel being undertaken by private individuals, Mr.Gwilt nobly undertook thework gratuitously, and carried it outwith the samecarehehadbestowedonthechoir.

Shortly after this, a report having arisen that the nave roofwas decayed, asurveyorwasemployedtoexamineit,who,recklesslycondemningitasunsafe,itwastakenoff,andnoneputoninitsplace.Thewalls,beingofchalk,becameshatteredbyexposuretothefrostofseveralwinters;andwhentherestorationofthe nave was proposed to the parishioners, that enlightened body of mennegatived it, and, taking down the glorious old structure, erected the presentabjectmonstrosityinitsplace.[43]

Happily,however,theinteriorsofthechoirandLadyChapelarestillperfect.Letushopeandpraythattheirwidowhoodmaynotbeofmuchlongerduration,but that a reproduction of the noble navemay be substituted for its unworthysupplanter.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.110.—TempleChurch,London.ViewofChoir.

Ishouldmentionthatthenavewasenteredonthesouthsidebyaverynobledoubledoorway,ofgreatheightanddepth,thoughwhenIknewititsdecorativefeatureshadperished. Iwillonlyadd that ifmeasureddrawingsof thischurchareinthepossessionofthefamilyofMr.Gwilt,itwouldbemostdesirablethatthey should be deposited among public archives, to await the timewhen theymustbewantedasaguidetothere-erectionofthelostportions.Inthemeantimeletmebegofyoutostudywellwhatremains.[44]

Next in importance, and probably in date, comes the choir of the TempleChurch,whichwasconsecratedin1240—amorefortunatebuildingthanthelast,and not needing from me any chronicle of its restoration. It is, in idea, amagnified transcriptof theLadyChapelatSt.Saviour’s,being, like it,vaultedthroughoutuponpillarsofequalheight,andisprobablyaboutthemostperfectspecimeninEnglandofthisbeautifulmodeofconstruction.

TheonlyotherimportantinstanceIrecollectinLondonoftheearlierportionofourstyleisthechapelatLambeth—averygoodEarlyEnglishchapel,thoughsomewhatdishonouredbyplastervaulting,theribsofwhichImyselfsawbeingprepared for by a core of spikes and tar-cord.Let us hope that this is the lastinstanceof suchconstruction,especiallyof its introduction ina time-honouredbuildinglikethis!

WenowcometooneofthenoblestofEngland’stemples—theAbbeyChurchofWestminster; and you will readily excuse me from dishonouring this trulyglorioustemplebyattemptingitsdescriptioninthecourseofahastycataloguelikethatIamnowgiving.Asyouallknow,itwascommencedin1245byKingHenry III., and the eastern portions finished about 1269. This makes itcontemporary, in a certain sense, with Amiens; for though the latter wascommencedin1220,itwasnotcompletedtill1288.Therecanbenodoubtthatthe cathedral at Amiens was, at the time of its erection, viewed as the mostperfect development of the style; for it is clear that it was made, in manyinstances,themodelonwhichthedesignsofotherchurcheswereformed.

CologneCathedral,forinstance,wascommencedin1248,duringtheerectionofthatatAmiens,andismanifestlyafreecopyofitsofarasconcernsitsearlierportions;[45]andthoughWestminsterAbbeyisbynomeansbuiltonthemodelof Amiens, it was probably influenced by it. That prodigious pile, carriedforwardthroughsolongaseriesofyears,wouldbeagreatobjectofinterestto

allcontemporarychurch-builders;andHenry,whowasmuch inFrance,wouldnaturallysendthearchitectofhisownsacredmausoleumtoseethegreatworkofhisday.

Westminster Abbey is a church built on a French ideal, but with Englishdetail—agreatFrenchthoughtexpressedinexcellentEnglish.

Thewindowsareoftheperfectedbartracery,whichhadnotyetbeenmuchusedinEngland;butinotherrespectsIcannotfindadistinctivelyFrenchdetail—or scarcely any—in the building, excepting the work of a single Frenchfoliagecarver.Eventheplan,whichispurelyFrenchinidea,iscarriedoutinamannerquitedifferentfromthatofanyFrenchchurchIhaveseen.

Inthearchitecturetheunionofthemannersofthetwonationsismosthappy.ThepillarsarenearlylikethoseofthegreatFrenchcathedral,butthesideshafts,insteadofbeingattached,areseparateshaftsofPurbeckmarble,thenucleusandthecapitalsandbasesbeingallof the samebeautifulmaterial.Theuseof thishardstoneledtothatofmouldedunfoliatedcapitals,inwhichtheyloseineffectwhencomparedwiththoseatAmiens;butthenoblermaterialwouldmorethancompensateforthis.

ThetriforiumisfarsuperiortothatatAmiensbothindesignanddetail,andthewhole internaldesign, though inferior insizeandaltitude, is tomyeyefarmore pleasing; and when its varied materials retained their colour, and thePurbeckmarble,whichpervadeseverypart,preserveditspolish,therecannotbeadoubtastothesuperiormagnificenceofitseffect.

Theparts,too,aremuchbetterproportioned,withperhaps,theoneexceptionof the too acute form of the main arches; the wall arcading is much morebeautiful,andthedetailsgenerallymorerichlymoulded.Wehave,then,here,atour doors, a building whose interior is equal to that of any existing Gothicbuilding, andwe have no excuse ifwe do not avail ourselves of so noble anopportunityofstudy.

OftheexteriorIwillsaynothing.Allitsoldfeatureshadperishedbytheendof the seventeenth century, when they were vilely renewed, and this baserestorationisnowinitsturndecayed.

Thechapter-houseisasplendidbutmelancholyrelic,littlemorethanaruin,and that not like those ruinswhich seem todohonour to thememoryof theirbygoneglorybythepicturesquelovelinesswhichgracestheirdecay.Itischokedupwithpresses,chests,galleries,hugesacksofparchment,andeverypossibleobstruction and disfigurement. Its beautiful windows—which filled the entirewidthofitssides—arewalledup,anditselegantvaultingdestroyed.Justenough

remainstorenderitsrestorationpracticable.Ihave,withgreatlabour,tracedoutalltheolddetails,andonlywishforthechanceofrestoringitinsomedegreetoitspristinebeauty.[46] I shouldmention that thesplendidencaustic floor is stillperfect,andthatveryfinespecimensofwallpaintingstillremain.Thevestibuleand staircase by which it is approached are beautifully designed, and thedoorwayfromthecloisterisamongthemostsplendidrelicsofEnglishart.Thelatterisinadreadfulstateofdecay,butIamhappytosaythatithasjustbeenstereotypedinitspresentstatebytheapplicationofaninvisiblesolution,whichwill prevent the further progress of disintegration, and which has set andhardened the crumbling particles,which the gentlest touchwould have beforedisplaced.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.111.—ConventionalFoliage,ChapelofSt.JohnBaptist,WestminsterAbbey.

ThefoliatedcarvinginWestminsterAbbeyunitesthetwogreattypeswhichcharacterisethiscentury—theconventionalandthenatural—andcontainssomeofthebestofeach.Icommendittoyourcarefulstudy,andwillmentionthatallwithin reach has been indurated in the manner I have just alluded to. Whatremains of the figure sculpture is also of great merit, especially four angelicfigures in the triforium of the transept,[47] and two full-length figures in thechapter-house,oneofwhichIhadthegreathappinessofdiscovering.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.112.—NaturalFoliage,ChapelofSt.JohnBaptist,WestminsterAbbey.

The internal proportions of the church seem tome to surpass those of anyother I have seen. They appear to be generally founded upon the equilateraltriangle, and a comparison of thiswithmany other churcheswill confirm thetruth ofwhat I haveheardhas been stated by an ancientFreemason—that thesquarewillfurnishgoodproportions,buttheequilateraltrianglemuchbetter.

The introduction of Italian mosaic-work[48]—both porphyry mosaic on thepavement, and glass mosaic on the tombs of the builder and rebuilder of theAbbey—isafactofgreatinterest,asshowingthehighestimationinwhichthearts peculiar to Italywere then held, somuch so as to lead to the bringing toEnglandoftwomastermosaic-workers—OdoricoandPietro[49](each,nodoubt,withhisstaffofworkmen)—tocarryoutthetwobranchesoftheart.BothartistswerefromRome,astheinscriptionsstilltestify;buttheirworkwasputtogetherhere,asisprovedbytheuseofPurbeckmarble,bothasthegroundworkofthepavement and for the architecture of the tombs. This architecture is not veryelegantinitsdetails,exceptingonlythebeautifulspiralpillars,andsomeofthesurface patterns prepared for the mosaic; and the introduction of an art soinferior to their own, for the sake of the rich inlaying it contained, stillmorestronglyprovestheirappreciationofthemeritsofthemosaicart.Letusfollowtheexamplemorewisely,andwhenweimportanyforeignspecialty,letusnotbringwithitanyofthedemeritswhichchancetoaccompanyit,butuniteitwiththebestartwearemastersof.

I know few, if any, churches which possess the same internal beauty asWestminster Abbey. More modern art has done its worst to ruin it, but itsintrinsic loveliness overrides every such attempt, and reigns triumphant overevery disfigurement.One characteristic it possesses almost alone—Imean thevirgin privilege of perpetual exemption from the brush of the whitewasher. Itprobablyowesthisuniquehappinesstoitshavingbeenbuiltontheprinciplesofconstructivepolychromy.Ithasmaterialsofatleastfourvarietiesofcolour,andthese,insomedegree,systematicallyandartisticallyused;andthisfacthasbeensufficient tokeepthewhitewasheratbay.Weare told that it isun-Englishandfantastictocareanythingaboutthecoloursofourmaterials;butletitneverbeforgotten that the churches which could boast of the chaste dignity of theirunvaried stone colour, have been, both at home and abroad, made overperiodically to the tendermerciesof themonochromist,while this,at leasthasbeenspared,—andthatonaccountof the“un-English”phantasyofusingmore

than one natural colour in its construction. These colours are now nearlyconcealed by smoke, but they still show modestly through, and still aid inrenderingthetonemoresolemnandstrikingthanthatofanychurchIhaveseen,exceptingthatverydifferentone—St.Mark’satVenice.

AmongthemonumentsintheAbbeybelongingtothiscenturyIwillmention—inaddition to theItalianworksalreadyalluded to—theeffigyofWilliamdeValence,anoakfigureplatedwithenamelledcopper,theenamelsonwhichareof magnificent workmanship; the beautiful bronze effigies of Henry III. andQueenEleanor,with themarble altar-tomb of the latter, and its beautiful irongrille(Fig.114);theprettylittlealtar-tombofsomeoftheroyalchildren,andthegorgeousmonuments toEdmundEarl ofLancaster, andAveline, his countess:thelatterhavebeenamongthemostsplendidlydecoratedworksoftheirday,andareworthyoftheverycloseststudy,bothbythearchitectandthearchitecturalpainter.

[Imageunavailable]Centrecompartment.

Fig.113.—Retabulum,ormoveableReredos,formerlybelongingtotheHighAltar,WestminsterAbbey.Thepaintings,exceptthemerestfragments,havegonefromthepanelstotherightofthecentre

compartment.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.114.—Partofwrought-irongrille,QueenEleanor’sTomb,WestminsterAbbey.

IwillcallattentiontooneotherobjectintheAbbey—Imeantheremarkablyancient retableormovable reredos formerlybelonging to thehighaltar. It is awonderfulworkofart,andIcallattentiontoitespeciallyinthisplace,becauseitcontains themost beautiful specimen of very early painting remaining in thiscountry. The pictures are probably by an Italian artist, several of whom areknowntohavebeenbroughtoveraboutthistime;butIconfessIhaveseennoworkofitsageinItalywhichIthoughtequaltoit,anopinionconfirmedbyanItalian professor of architecture to whom I once showed it. It is, I believe,contemporarywiththeearlydaysofGiotto.

Iwill nowpasson to a farhumblerbuilding, andonevery littleknownorvisited;ImeantheChapelofSt.Etheldreda,inElyPlace,Holborn.

Thiswas thechapelof thesplendid townpalaceof theBishopsofEly,andwasbuiltbyBishopDeLudasoonafter1290.Thedestructionofthepalaceyouwill,Idaresay,recollecttohavebeencelebratedbyPugininhis“Contrasts.”Itwassoldduringthelastcentury,andthepresentuntempting-lookingstreetbuiltonitssite—aplacewhereonewouldaslittleexpecttofindagemofancientartas the ripe strawberries which Dickon of Gloucester saw growing there andbeggedfor.

Thechapel is in awretchedplight; its sidewindowshave lost both traceryandmullions,itswestwindowisingreatmeasureboardedup,thecradledroofplastered, thewhole galleried around and fitted upwith pewingwhichwoulddisgrace a tabernacle of the last century; yet through all this its beauty stillshows. The chapel is, as was so usual with private chapels, elevated on anovergroundcrypt,soastobringittoalevelwiththeprincipalapartmentsofthepalace.Curiouslyenough, thiscrypt isnotvaulted,buthasover it theoriginalfloorofmassivetimber.

Theeastandwestwindows,offivelightseach,areamongthefinestoftheirperiodandsize.[50]Thesidewindows,denudedoftheirtracery,retain,internally,their beautiful jamb mouldings, and the wall between them has a gracefulcanopiedandcrocketedpanel toeach interveningpier,whichgives thesidesaveryricheffect.Ihadlongandoftenlamentedtheirmutilatedcondition,andwasonedaytryingtogetatsomecluetothedesignoftheirtracery,byexaminingthescars where it had been amputated, when the thought struckme that the twowesternmostofthembeingblockedupbytheadjoininghouses,might,ifopened

out,be found to retain theirdecorative features. Iapplied forpermission todothis;andwhatwasmydelight,onremovingthematerialwhichobstructedthem,to find the old window—mutilated, indeed, and shattered—but still retainingeveryelementneedfultotherestorationofitsdesign!

[Imageunavailable]Fig.115.—SideWindows,ChapelofSt.Etheldreda,ElyPlace,Holborn.

Thedoorway to thechapel isverybeautiful, and its foliatedornamentwellworthyof study.The internaldimensionsareabout90 feetby30—afavouritesize,itwouldseem,andnotdifferingmuchfromthedimensionsofSt.Stephen’sChapel, that at Temple Balsal, or the Sainte Chapelle at Paris (reckoning thelatterinFrenchfeet).

Thearchitectureofthechapelisnearlyalliedtothatofaseriesofsepulchralmonuments Ialluded to inmyformer lecture,andsomeof themagain in this.OneoftheseisthatofitsownfounderatEly;thesecondandthirdarethoseofEdmund and Aveline, at Westminster Abbey; and the fourth is that ofArchbishopPeckham,atCanterbury.Allthesedatebetween1290and1300,andareworksofexquisitebeautyandoftherichestdecorativeart.

Iwill now lead you on a short excursion out of London, to a glorious oldtemplewhichwas,inthedaysofmypupilage,consideredtobewithinwalkingdistance, and cannowbe reached in less than anhour by railway. Imean thevenerableAbbeyChurchofSt.Alban.

Youprobablyknowthegeneralhistoryofthischurch:foundedoverthetomboftheprotomartyrofEngland,withintenyearsofhismartyrdom,andrebuiltona larger scale by Offa, King of Mercia, it was again rebuilt of its presentenormousdimensionsby theearlierof theNormanabbots,using thematerialsexcavatedfromtheruinedcityofVerulam.

The Roman brick was not a material very suggestive of ornamentalarchitecture, and we accordingly find the original portions to be plain andmassive in theextreme,but,nevertheless,highly impressiveandinteresting. Inthework of a laterNorman abbotwe find this unshapelymaterial casedwithstone-work,andof richlydecorativedetails;but thechurch ingeneral retaineditsseveresimplicityundisturbedtilltheaccessionofAbbotJohnDeCella,inthereignofKingRichardI.

This worthy abbot was more a man of taste than of business, and histemperamentmoresanguinethancalculating.Hehadnosoonertakenpossessionof the abbacy than he embarked on a magnificent project for rebuilding thewestern façade of his abbey church; only a prelude, probably, to thereconstructionofthewholeinthenewstyle.

The massive brick front, with its flanking towers, would have formed anexcellentnucleusforhiswork;buthisardentspiritwouldnotsubmittosuchan

expedient, and he at once took down the vast façade, and that before he hadcollectedmoneyforthenewone.Theconsequencewasthathehadscarcelygothis new work out of the ground before his funds were exhausted. His firstbuilderturnedoutarascal,andhehadtodischargehim;thestoneheusedwasdestroyedbythefrost;and,mishapaftermishapfollowinghisundertaking.Theworthymanwas led, as is so commonwith badmenof business, to bend hisproudspirittoapaltrytrick;and,asameansofraisingthewind,hesentoneofhismonksaboutthecountrywithamanwhomhedeclaredtohavebeenraisedfromthedeadbytheagencyoftherelicsofSt.Amphibalus,andbeggedmoneyonthestrengthofthemiracle.Butallwouldnotdo,andaftertenyears’labour,duringwhichtheoldhistoriantellsusthatallthefundsheprocuredweremerelylikeriversflowingintothesea,whichwasnofullerforreceivingthem,hecouldnotbringhisworkabovethelevelofthemasons’shed;and,atlength,givingitupindespair,contentedhimselfwithmorehumbleundertakings.

Hewas succeeded by AbbotWilliamDe Trumpington, a manwho unitedwith the taste forbuilding, inherent in theage, amoremoderate ambitionandgreateraptitude forbusiness.He resumed thesuspendedworks,butmoderatedtheircostliness;andmakingallthedetailsplainer,andgivinguporpostponingthe flanking towers,hewasnotonlyenabled tocomplete the restof the front,butalsotocarryonthenewworkalongwaydownthenave,andsubsequentlytomakemanyotheralterations.

Now,Ibegyoutogoandexaminetheseworks,and,indoingso,tobearinmindtheirhistory.Youwillfind—asthechroniclertellsus—thatjustabouttheheightofamason’sshed,thereisasuddenchangeinthework.Uptothatheightthedetailsareverysuperior,andfarricherthanabove.Below,wefindtracesofthe artist; above, of the constructor and man of business, though not to theforgetting of art. Thus, round the piers below are bases for marble shafts;somewhat higher are themarkswhere theirmoulded bands have been brokenoff;butabove,theircapitalsarewanting—

“ForWilliam’sshearshadcutthebaubleoff.”

The three portals I alluded to in my last lecture are the work of theunfinancialartist;[51]therangeofpillars,etc.,downthenave,ofthenotinartisticman of business. Both are noble works. Trumpington’s works are bold andmassive,andhisdetailsgood,thoughsimple;butforbeautyofdesignwemustawardthepalmtohislessthriftybutmorespirituelpredecessor:indeed,Iknowfewworksequalindesigntowhathecommenced;andhadhebeenabletocarryit out, this façade might have vied with that of Wells. Unhappily there are,

externally,littleremainsoftheworkofeitheroftheabbots.Lateinthecenturythechoir,also,wasingreatmeasurerebuilt.Itscharacter

islessforciblethantheearlierworks,yetexceedinglybeautiful.Theeasternchapels—whichopenedbyfivearchesintothechurch—wereat

thesametimecommenced,butonlyinpartcarriedout,theLadyChapelhavingbeenstoppedshortafterrisingafewfeetfromtheground,andthechapelswhichopened from the choir having suffered considerable alterations from their firstdesign.Theyarenowvirtuallyinruins,buttheirdetailsareofexquisitebeauty.The windows have tracery of very high merit, and the wall arcading—nowalmostentirelydestroyed—hasbeenquitecharming.

Theseworksformacontinuousseries,fromthelastdaysofthetwelfthtotheendofthethirteenthcentury,andareadmirableillustrationsofthearchitectureofthisgreatperiod.

Iwill dip sevenyears into the succeeding century tomention the exquisitefragmentsofthesubstructurewhichcarriedtheshrineoftheprotomartyr.Theyhaverecentlybeenexhumedinopeningawalled-uparch.TheyareofPurbeckmarble,and,inspiteofthestubbornmaterial,aremostwonderfullycarved,theleavesbeingsomuchundercutasinplacestobequitedetached.[52]

ThisvenerablechurchpossessesclaimsuponthestudentresidinginLondonsecondonlytothoseofourownAbbeyofWestminster.Irecommendittoyourspecial and diligent study, and you will, I am sure, never blame me for myadvice.[53]

Onsomeofyourvisitsthere,praygoontoDunstable,whereyouwillfindanoble priory church, in the later Norman style, whose western portal wasprobablyinitsdaythefinestinthekingdom;butowingtothefriableclunchofwhich itwasconstructed,has lost thegreaterpartof itsdecorations.Thewestfrontcontainsexcellentworkofthethirteenthcentury.Itisagreatarchitecturalenigma, which I believe I have solved, but I will not spoil it for you byexplainingmyconjectures.

Ibegin tosee,however, that Ihaveembarkedonanendless task,andhavegot half through my time without getting through the home district. I willtherefore leaveit,witharequest thatyouwillnotconsiderStoneChurch,nearGravesend,theworseforhavingbecomesomewhathackneyed.Itisamutilatedwork, but what remains of it is as exquisite an example of a period aboutagreeingwiththatofWestminsterAbbeyascan,perhaps,anywherebefound.

As I cannot pretend to give you a complete architectural itinerary, I willimagine—notseeingmywaytoabetter—anortherntourinsearchofworksof

theageIhavebeentreatingof;andgivingapassinglookatWalthamCross,inwhichIoncedelighted,thoughnow,Iconfess,itsso-calledrestorationhasratherdampedmyenthusiasm,andhastilylookinginatJesusChapelatCambridge,averyexcellentspecimenofEarlyEnglish,letusproceedtoEly.Ihaverepeatedlyalludedtothetwogreatworksinourstylewhichitcontains:thewesternporch,builtbetween1197and1214,isbyfarthenoblestinthiscountry.Itispeculiarinits size and position, more of a narthex, perhaps, than a porch, or rather thewesternarmofthecrossformedbythewesterntransept.Externally,itiscoveredwith decorative arcading in four ranges. It is of two storeys, the upper onehaving formed a spacious chamber. The angle buttresses are of that beautifulkind which are almost peculiar to this period, being of the form of clusteredpillars.

Thetwoportals—theouterandtheinner—are,intheirleadingforms,alike;theyaredouble,andofveryloftyproportions.Theirheadswereformerlyfilledwith theVescicaPiscis,possiblycontainingsittingstatues;but this—why, it isimpossibletodivine—wastakenoutinbothinstances,andawretchedpieceofflowingtracery, inplaster,substitutedbyBernasconi, tothenosmalldetrimentofthedoorways.

The inner doorway is an exquisite work of art, the mouldings being mostbeautifullyfoliated.Thesidesof theporcharearcadedintwostagesinamostbeautifulandartisticmanner,andprobablycontainedsculpture.Thecapitalsareamong the finest to be found in any English building. The porch measuresinternally40feetby30feet.

Theothergreatworkofthiscentury,atEly,consistsofthesixeasternbays,withtheeasternfront.TheywerecommencedbyBishopNorthwoldin1235,andcompletedin1251.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.117.—ElyCathedral,EasternFront.

It forms one of the finest specimens of the Early English style. The nobledevelopment of its triforium is an inheritance from the Norman church, withwhoselevelsitwasmadetorange.TheliberaluseofPurbeckmarbleaddsvastlytothebeautyofthework:thepillarsareentirelyofthismaterial,includingeventheirrichlyfoliatedcapitals,asarethelongandelaboratelycarvedcorbelswhichcarrythevaultingshafts.

Thecarryingoutofthewhole—itsproportions,itsdetails,itsmouldings,themassive strength of its construction, united with just a sufficient degree oflightness, the great elegance of its vaulting, and the grandeur of its easternfaçade—render itoneof themostvaluableobjectsofstudywhichwepossess.The tomb of its founder is a wonderful work of art—a canopied effigysurrounded by statuettes, angels, and even subjects, all in a single block ofPurbeckmarble.

ThereareotherworksofourperiodatEly,and fineones;butwemustnotlingerthere,butproceedonwardtoPeterborough.

Ifthethreegreatarcheswhichformthewestfrontherearetobeviewedasportals, Iwascertainlywrongwhen I said thatEnglishportalsweresmallandinconspicuous.Theseare, in fact,of suchvast elevationas todeprive themofthattitle.Thewholemaybeviewedasavastportico,itistrue,butthedoorwaysarewithinit,andofmoderatedimensions,whileabovethem,andstillbelowthearches,areconsiderablewindows.It is, infact,adesignwhichstandsquitebyitself,andcanscarcelybejudgedofbyordinaryparallels.

I confess that to my eye it has always appeared as a glorious conception,thoughonenotoftentoberepeated.Haditsflankingtowersbeencompletedinthe same style, the two great towerswhich backed it up completedwith theirspires,andtheoddlittlechapelwhichhasbeenthrustintoitscentralarchbeenomitted, I know few fronts to which it would yield in grandeur, and none inoriginality.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.118.—CircularWindow,WestFront,PeterboroughCathedral.

Peterboroughoncepossessedanoblework,inthelatterpartofthecentury,inits Lady Chapel, but only a few fragments remain. Its mutilated cloister, thegateway to the bishop’s palace, and the ruins of the infirmary, are beautifulworksofthisperiod.Iknowfewcathedralswhich,externally,ImoreenjoythanPeterborough.InoldcoachingdaysIusedoftentopassthroughatbetweenfourand five in the morning, and if daylight permitted, I made it a point ofconscience to run round the cathedral while the mail bags were in course ofarrangement;andneverwilltheimpressionitproducedonmymindbeeffaced.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.119.—PetersboroughCathedral.

Wecomehere intoa country repletewithvillagechurches,manyofwhichare in our style. Warmington, for instance, between here and Oundle, is analmostperfectthirteenth-centurychurch,andIonlymentionitasonespecimen,fortimewouldfailmetoenteruponevenanenumeration.Offtothenortheast,too, there is West Walton, with its splendid and unique detached tower—analmost unequalled example; andnearer at hand are themournful and totteringrelics of the sisterAbbeyofCrowland, thedetails ofwhoseWestern front arehardlytobesurpassed,andarethemoreinterestingashavingbeenevidentlytheworkofthearchitecttotheeasternpartofLincolnCathedral.EventhestoneisfromLincoln,thoughitisamaterialnotusedinthedistrict.

AsyougofromPeterboroughtoLincoln,whicheverroadyoutake,thereareendless series of village churches, as well as others of greater pretensions.Stamfordisrichinworkofthisage,butIwillonlyalludetothechurchesofSt.Mary andAllSaints.Close by is the beautifulEarlyEnglish tower ofKetton.Grantham possesses the most stately steeple (next only to Salisbury) in thekingdom; and on another road I may mention Frampton, as having the mostperfectofallsimpleEarlytowersandspiresthatIknow.Butletushastenontothecrowninggloryofthedistrict,whoselordlytowerspresideinserenemajestyoverthewholesurroundingcountry.

NoEnglishcathedralis,externally,soimposingasthatofLincoln,nordoIrecollectanyabroadwhich,asawhole,surpassesit;andnearlythewholeofitssublime architecture belongs virtually to this century, though in actual date itbeginsafewyearsearlier,andendsafewyearslater.

ItisthecustomtospeakofSalisburyasthegreattypicalexampleoftheEarlyEnglishstyle,anditsunityandcompletenessmaywarranttheclaim;butbothforthe grandeur of thewhole and the artistic beauty of every part, and also as acompleteexponentofEnglisharchitecturethroughout thewholedurationof itsgreatest period, Lincoln far surpasses it. Its leading features form a perfectillustration, and that on the grandest scale, of the entire history of ourarchitecture,fromthelastyearsofthetwelfthtotheearlypartofthefourteenthcentury.

As I have so oftenmentioned, the Pointed style commences herewith thechoir,thesmallertransept,andperhapsthechapter-house,[54]allofwhichseemto have been erected before the year 1200 by Bishop Hugh. It is commonly

stated that his architect was a Frenchman fromBlois; andM. Lassus broadlystatesthathereproducedatLincoln,in1188,thedesignofachurchcommencedat Blois in 1138. I am not able to speak as to the authorities onwhich thesestatementsarefounded,butImustsaythattheinternalevidenceaffordedbythebuildingitselfgivesit,sofarasIcanjudge,littleornosupport.Inthefirstplace,an eastern transept, in addition to that at the main crossing, is much morefrequent in England than in France; whether the cathedral of Blois (nowdestroyed) possessed this I do not know. In the second place, the polygonalchapter-house isanequallyEnglishfeature. In the thirdplace,oneof themostremarkablecharacteristicsof thiswork is thenearlyuniversaluseof theroundabacus—thatdistinctivelyEnglishdetail—andthatataperiodsomewhatearlierthan that of its customary predominance. The general distribution of the partsseems to me rather English than French, and though the work displays someidiosyncrasies,IdonotseeinthemanythingtoindicateaFrenchorigin,unlessitbeinthecapitalsofthemainpillars;indeed,itisaworkinwhichdistinctivelyEnglishcharacteristicsappearinasomewhatadvancedstateofdevelopment.AstoitsbeingareproductionofaworkcommencedatBloisin1138,theassertioncarrieswith it itsownrefutation; for, inanageof restlessprogress, is it likelytheywould take the trouble tobringoveraforeignarchitectofsoretrogradeataste as to ignore the artistic progressmade in his own country during half acentury?Infact,thewonderoftheworkisbeingsomuchinadvanceofitsage,andthatadvanceisnotinaFrenchbutanEnglishdirection.TheChurchofSt.Nicholas,atBlois, is in theEarlyPointedstyleof the latterhalfof the twelfthcentury,butbearsnot the least resemblance to this; it isof the samecharacterwhichisusualinFrenchtransitionalworks,anditscarvingisstrictlyByzantine,notatraceofwhichhaveIobservedinBishopHugh’swork.If,then,aFrencharchitectwasengagedhere,hemustnotonlyhavemadeoverthedetailsofhisworkwhollytoEnglishmen,buthavestudiouslyfollowedEnglishformsinthegeneralfeatures.[55]

The rebuilding of the cathedral seems to have been followed onsystematically westward by the two successors of Bishop Hugh, till thecompletionofthenavebyBishopGrostete,about1240.

Thenave isbyfar thefinestportionof theworkas thencompleted,and is,probably,onthewhole, thegrandestexampleof theEarlyPointedstyle in thiscountry. It exhibitsourEarlyEnglishstyle in itshighest stateofdevelopment:massive without heaviness, rich in detail without exuberance, its partssymmetrically proportioned and carefully studied throughout, the foliatedcarvingboldandeffective,thereseemsnodeficiencyinanywaytodeteriorate

fromitsmerits.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.120.—Rose-window,NorthTransept,LincolnCathedral.

Thewest end isunique,beingavast andalmostunperforatedwall coveredover with range upon range of decorative arcading, flanked by two vast stairturrets,andbackedbytwonobletowers,thecompletionofwhichwas,however,delayedtillamuchlaterperiod.Italwaysstrikesmeasaveryimpressivefront,butIfindthatitdoesnotstrikealleyessofavourably.Iwouldcallattentiontothebeautifulchapels to therightand leftonenteringfromthewest,with theirlightandelegantcolumnscontrastingmostagreeablywiththemassivepiersofthenave;alsotothenoblerosewindowinthenorthtransept,perhapsthefinestinEngland(Fig.120).

Themostgorgeouspart,however,ofthecathedralisitseasternportion.Thiswasaddedbetween theyears1256and1282, and is consequentlya little laterthanHenryIII.’sworkatWestminster.Itagreeswithit instyle,butcarriesoutthe principle ofwindow tracery on a far grander scale. It is, in fact, themostsplendid work of that period which we possess, and, did it not lack internalheight,Idonotthinkitcouldbeexceededinbeautybyanyexistingchurch.

Thesculpturewithwhichitwasonceprofuselyenrichedwasofaveryhighorder,thefoliatedcarvingperfectlyexquisite,themouldingsandotherdetailsofthe most perfect character. The east window is probably the finest in thekingdom,asistheeastfrontingeneral,afterallowingacertainabatementfortheerrorofhavingfalsegablestotheaisles.

I have already mentioned the exquisite portal, the sculpture in which issuperb(Fig.122).

The student ofMediæval art ought tomake a long sojourn atLincoln, andstudy its treasury of art at his leisure; not forgetting, by the by, the beautifulremains

[Imageunavailable]Fig.122.—South-eastPortal,LincolnCathedral.

ofthechapeltothebishop’spalacehardbythecathedral.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.121.—LincolnCathedral,ViewfromtheSouth-east.

In passing northward from Lincoln, a profitable digressionmay be had toSouthwell,whosenoble choir seems tobeanemanation fromLincoln, and itsfar-famedchapter-housefromYork;andtoNewstead,whosebeautifulwestfrontandlovelycarvingagreesinstylewiththeeasternportionofLincoln.

Yorkshire isespecially the landofminstersandabbeychurches.Toattempthereadescriptionofthemwouldbevain;aYorkshiretourisoneoftherichesttreatsthestudentcanlookforwardto,andonetowhichheoughttobeliberalinhisallowanceoftime.AtYorkitselfthetranseptisamongthefinestexamplesoftheearlierpartofthestyle,andtheruinsofSt.Mary’sAbbeyofitslaterportion.Iknowfewworkssoenchantingasthelatter.ItagreesindatewiththeeastpartofLincoln,and isnotunlike it indetail. It isamerewreck,butworthyof theclosest study, and the shattered fragments which lie on every side offermelancholyfacilitiestothestudent.Thechapter-houseofthecathedralisalittlelater, and has been well called a “Domus Domorum,” though I would notwillinglyadmititssuperioritytothoseofWestminsterorSalisbury.

TheneighbouringvillagechurchatSkelton—said tohavebeenbuiltby thesame hands as the transept of the cathedral, and the ruined chapel of St.Leonard’sHospital in the gardens round the abbey—showhowunerringly thesamestylefitteditselftoworksofthemoststupendousorofthehumblestscale.

This great county is filled with the noble productions of the thirteenthcentury.TheminstersofBeverleyandRiponowemuchoftheirbeautytoit;andscarcely one of the abbey churches, whose lovely but mournful ruins add acharmsomelancholytothesecludedvalleysofYorkshire,failstoshowtheworkofthegreatperiod.

I cannot attempt even a cursory description.Go, I pray you, and study foryourselves:gotoFountainsAbbey,andstudywellitschoirandeasternchapels,withtheirmassivepillars,thetallestperhapsinEngland,andtheremainsofitswonderfulabbatialhall,exposedtoviewbytherecentexcavations,anditsmanyotherwonders;butdonotbesatisfiedwithapassingvisit:takeupyourquartersat Ripon, and follow up your studies from day to day.Aweek is but a shortallowance for so rich a school of art. Then go to Rivaulx andWhitby, twinworks, itwould seem,of the sameaccomplished architect. I cannot award thepalm to either—they are truly a “par nobile fratrum,” and it is fair to preferwhicheverofthemwehaveseenthelast.Theirgreatpointofdifferenceisthat

thechoirofonehasbeenvaulted,andthatoftheotherhasshownitstimberroof;but in glorious architecture they are equal, and almost unequalled.As you gofromYorktoWhitbyyoupassasmallfragmentoftheAbbeyofKirkham:stopandlookatit:smallasitis,itisoneofthebestdesignedpiecesofworkIeversaw.IffromWhitbyyoucrossthemoorstoGuisborough,youwillseewhatwasprobably theworkof theveryendof thecentury—the stupendouseast endofthatabbey,withitseastwindowexceedingeventhatatLincolninheight.

If you go on to Durham, the Chapel of the Nine Altars will rivet yourattention;[56] and farther yet at Hexham,[57] at Dryburgh, and far on throughScotland, to the Chapel of Holyrood, and the glorious remains of ElginCathedral, and that noble temple yet preserved unruined atGlasgow, youwillfindalongseriesoftheartofthiswonderfulage.

Inreturning,praylookinatFurnessAbbey,whereyouwillfindanabsolutegem of our style in the ruined chapter-house.[58] It has been of the sameconstructionwiththeTempleChurch,andofexquisitebeauty.

I have passed over the whole series of southern examples—as Hythe,Shoreham, Winchester, Boxgrove, Wells, Llandaff (one of its most originalproductions),Worcester,Lichfield,Hereford,andahundredmoreexamples,allofwhich supply proofs of thewonderful perfection of the architecture of thiscentury.

Butamerecatalogueisbothuselessandwearisome.Ioughtalsotohavecalledspecialattentiontothecircumstance,thatwhilein

France nearly every great church is vaulted, such is not the case in Englishworks: they seem tohaveactedwithperfect freedom in this respect, and theirchurches,eventhelargestof them,havefrequentlyhadopentimberroofs,andsufferlittlebythevariety.

One thing cannot fail to strike every one who closely studies our oldarchitecture. In early Norman buildings we often find rude and clumsyworkmanship; in works from the middle of the fourteenth century, on to theextinctionofGothicarchitecture,wefrequentlymeetwiththesame—theworkofrude,untutoredhands,evidentlyunable todojustice to theirstyle;butfromabout1175to theendof the thirteenthcentury,andnearly fiftyyears later,wescarcely ever meet with this inequality. The art seemed to be all-pervading.Certainbuildingsmayhavebeenplaintoadegree,andrusticintheirobjectandmaterial, yet you rarely find anything you can call rude in workmanship orunskilfulintreatment.Itwasagreatperiod,anditsgreatnessseemedtopervadeeven themost secluded districts, and the workmen everywhere to have felt aprideinkeepinguptotheperiodoftheirartinwhichtheirlothadbeencast.Nor

need we wonder at this, for everywhere were buildings going on; scarcely avillage church escaped the notice of the builders of this wonderful age. Thewholecountrywasengagedintheoneworkofbuilding,andthatwithanardentfeelingtorendertheirworkworthyofthestyletheyhadgenerated.

Andletusnotimaginethatthearchitectureoftheagedevelopeditselfonlyincathedrals,abbeys,orchurchesofanykind;allotherbuildingsevincethesamespirit:abarnofthethirteenthcenturyshowsthenoblenessofthepervadingstyleas clearly as even the cathedral itself, and what remains of their domesticarchitecturetellsthesametale.Everythingwasdonewell, ingoodtaste,andinaccordance with reasonable and practical requirements and the means atcommand.

Norwasittoarchitecturealonethattheartsoftheperiodweredevoted:wefind the same art expended on stained glass, on metal-work of all sorts, onenamelsof themostmagnificentcharacter,on the illuminationofmanuscripts,the painted decoration of the buildings, on jewellery, on ivory-carving, onembroidery,onwovenfabrics,tapestry,seal-engraving—infact,oneverybranchofdecoration;everyoneofwhichartswerecarriedoutwithadegreeofskillandinstinctivetastetrulyamazing.Allthesebranchesshould,however,betreatedofseparately.

InmyenumerationofbuildingsIhavelimitedmyselftoourowncountry;butwe all know that in France the same great facts are, if possible, yet morewonderfully proved. The architecture of the thirteenth century, in France, isrendered illustrious by an endless category of buildings, the most gloriousperhapswhichtheworldhasproduced.

Germany, though her style is broken harshly by the cause I have beforealludedto,neverthelessfurnishes,whetherinthenativevarietyoftheformerorintheadoptedoneofthelatterhalfofthecentury,aseriesofbuildingsofwhichanycountrymightwellbeproud.

In Italy the style was certainly imported from the North; but was it anunnatural transplantation?Ishouldsaybynomeansso.HadnotItalyherownRomanesque,whichshehadinsomedegreeexportedtoNortherncountries?andhaveInotshownthatPointedarchitecturewasanaturalandlogicaldevelopmentfromRomanesque?Why,then,shoulditbeaccountedforeigntothelandfromwhichRomanesqueitselfhadsprung?—andifthegrowthofPointedarchitecturewasaidedbyideasculledfromByzantiumandtheEast,whyshouldthoseideasbelesssuitedtoItalythantoFranceorEngland,whosecommunicationswiththeEastwerefar lessdirect?Didnotshetakepart in thesameCrusades?nay,didnottheByzantineelementinFrenchartactuallycometherethroughthemedium

ofItaly?Letusnot,then,denytoherafairparticipationinthearchitectureoftheage.Wehaditbeforeher, it istrue,butletusnotonthataccountsaythatit isnoneofhers.

ThegreatfaultintheMediævalarchitectureofItalyliesinitsdetails,suchasitsmouldings, etc., which evince toomuch of their antique original: its greatvalueliesinitsuseofmaterialsofvariedcolour,ofinlaying,mosaic-work,andother decorative arts, inherited also from the past. These arts ally themselveswellwithourstyle,thoughtheClassicmouldingsdonotso;andinourjudgmentof Italian work we should never lose sight of this; we may otherwise be ledeithertorejectrealmeritfromtheoffencewhichincongruousdetailofferstoourtaste,orwemaybeledtoacceptwhatisbadandspurious,becausegildedover,and its demerits concealed by beautiful art, which would appear to greateradvantageifunitedwithpurerarchitecture.

Anothercause,however,whichgivesgreatvaluetotheMediævalartofItaly,arisesfromthesomewhataccidentalcircumstancethatherinternalpositionwassuch as to require townbuildingsverymuchof thekindwhichwewantnow.The consequence is that Italywas, even in those earlydays, the landof streetpalaces, and thatwe find yet remaining there numberless buildings of a classwhichwefindbutrarelyinothercountries,andthosetreatedinamannerveryparallelwithwhatwe often require at the present day.Not, let it be borne inmind, that they are treated in a manner essentially different from the coevalworksinmoreNortherncountries,butratherthatthereweremoreofthem,thatthesewereona largerscale,and thatmoreof themhaveremained toourownday.

It is a mistake to suppose that the secular architecture of Italian citiesessentiallydifferedfromthatofthesameperiodelsewhere.Ifyouwillcarefullylook through any book showing specimens of the domestic architecture ofFrance in the thirteenth century, youwill find that it closely resembles that ofItaly, except in having purer details. The same kind of window, for instance,which, fromhabit,peoplehavegot into thewayofcalling ItalianorVenetian,prevailedinFranceandGermany,andisoftenfoundinEngland.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.123.—PalaisdesPodestats,Orvieto,Italy. Fig.124.—TorrediSanta,Ninfa,Palermo.

IgiveyouaseriesofItalian(Figs.123,124),French(Figs.Figs.125,Figs.126),German(Figs.127,128,129),andEnglish(Figs.130,131,132,133,134,135)windowsofearlydate,whereyoucanscarcelydistinguishtheonefromtheother; indeed, youwould seldombe able to detect an Italianwindowat all, ifdivestedof the accidental clothingof its non-essential details.This establishesthe unity of the style; yet the fact remains that works of the kind are moreabundant,larger,andmoredevelopedinItaly,andthattheymayconsequentlybestudied there to great advantage as an aid and expletive to what we learnelsewhere.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.125.—Meslay,nearTours,France. Fig.126.—FromHousesatCluny.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.127.—TheEmperor’sHouse,Gostar. Figs.128,129.—HousesatCologne.

Thisbringsmetotheconcludingsubjectofmylecture—thequestionofwhatlessonsweshouldlearnfromwhathaspassedinarraybeforeus,andwhateffectitoughttohaveonourownartisticpractice.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.130.—Window,WestGateway,CollegeGreen,Gloucester.

[Imageunavailable]Figs.131,132,133.—FromanoldbuildingcalledCanute’s

Castle,Southampton.Fig.134.—Moyse’sHall,

BurySt.Edmunds.

It would be hopeless to enter upon the general question of the revival ofstyles. Iwill suppose that question to have been disposed of for us, and limitmyselftoconsideringwhatisthemostreasonablecoursetofollowinconductingsucharevival,orratherincarryingonthedevelopmentofastyleuponarevivedbasissuchasthatofthearchitecturewehavebeenconsidering.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.135.—OakhamCastle,Rutlandshire.

Now,sucharevival,tobeginwith,ishardlytobeviewedasadeliberateact.Amanwouldscarcelybeboldenoughtomakeuphismind,àpriori,toreviveastyle of architecture: circumstancesmust have gradually led to such a course,anditmusthavebeensetaboutgradually,andalmostunconsciously,togiveitachance of success. We may, in looking back upon what has taken place,construct a very good theory for it all; but no such theory really led to it—itcame about very much of itself. We may, by thought and by studying ourposition,do a little in findinggood reasons for an existingmovement; but themovement itself must have arisen from some more hidden and deep-seatedcause,or itwouldhavediedaway longago.What, then,does thisdeep-seatedfeelingdemand,andwithwhatwillitbesatisfied?

Itcravesspontaneouslyafteragreatstyleofart,whichitsees tohavebeenoncethebirthrightofourrace.Itdemandsthatweshould—Iwillnotsaysimplyrevive that style of art, but that we should revivify it: not that it should bereproducedasasplendidpageant,tobere-enactedforthesakeofgratifyingourromanticorantiquarianpredilections,butthatweshouldrekindleitsactuallife;andhavingdoneso,shouldnotonlythink,anddesign,andinventinthatstyle,as the livingmedium for theexpressionofour artistic aspirations,but thatweshouldcauseit totakeroot, tospringforth,togerminateandramify—toshapeitself to all the demands of our age, and to adapt itself to its materials, itsdiscoveries,itsinventions,anditsscience;inshort,tobecomeineverysensealiving,avigorous,agrowingart.

Now, to further such an object, what is the best manner in which we canmakeuseofthelessonstobelearntfromthepastcreationsofthatstyle?

Oneof the lessons I thinkweshould learn is towork in the same freeandliberal spirit inwhich our forefathersworked: not to dowhat theydid, butasthey did. If we, on the one hand, shut ourselves up in our own country, and,reproducingthestylewefindtohaveprevailedhere,sulkilyrejectingthelessonstobelearnedfromneighbouringlands,wemayproduceaservilereproductionofwhat was done by our predecessors, but shall be acting anything but as theyacted. If, on the other hand, we travel widely, and, giving free license to ourindividualpreferencesormomentaryfancies,weimportnowthisstyle,andnowthat—herebuildinginaFrench,thereinanItalianvarietyofourstyle—weshallineachcasebedoingwhatwasdoneinoneoranotherprovinceofMediævalart,butshallbeequallyfarfromdoingastheoldartistsdid:theonecourseinvolves

servility,theotheraddstoitfrivolity.The great principle on which the Mediæval architects of each country

instinctively acted was, while adhering in themain each to the dialect of thegreatartwhichhappenedtobecurrentamongstthem,toimproveitbythefreeimportation of ideas and adoption of hints fromwhencesoever they might bederived,butespeciallyfromthedialectsofthesameartisticlanguage.Thus,forinstance,thePointedarchitectureoftheroyaldomainofFranceis,asawhole,alogicalsequenceoftheRomanesqueofthesamedistrict;yetnoscruplewasfeltatimportingintoittheByzantinecapitalsandfoliage,whichhadcometothemthroughthemediumofVenice;andtothisforeignimportationtheyowedsomeof the greatest beauties of their architecture; nay, if theOriental origin of thePointedarchbetrue,theywentfurther,andengraftedupontheirtraditionalartafeature learned from the infidels they were combating. Again, the EnglishPointedmay be traced step by step from the preceding style, yet they had nohesitation about introducing into it details developed by the French. TheGermanscarriedtheprincipletoofar:givinguptheirowntraditionalvarietyofPointed architecture, they adopted the French developments ready made; yet,havingdoneso,theyworkedthemupinamannerquitetheirown:whileinItaly,thenewstylehavingbeenbrought inupon thepre-existingRomanesque, theysoonelaborated it intoadialectasdistinctivelycharacteristicas thoseofotherEuropean countries.Besides this, nonationhad any scruples about employingartistsbelongingtoanother;sothattheadvancementmadebyeachbecameinadegree the common property of all; and even the woven fabrics and othermanufacturesimportedfromthefarEastwereallowedtooffersuggestionstotheEuropeandecorator.

To follow out the same principle, we ought, while especially makingourselves masters of the architecture of our own country, and using it as thegroundworkofourrevival,neverthelesstoviewthestyleasawhole,and,whilenotforsakingourownprovincialdialect,tomakeourselvesmastersoftheentirelanguage.Weshouldnotwishourrevivedarttobeindistinguishablefromthatofour forefathers. It shouldcertainly reflect someof thecharacteristicsofourownage,oneofwhichisourenormously-increasedhabitsoflocomotion;andaswevisitall thedistrictswhereourstyleprevailed,nothingcanbemorenaturalthan thatour revivedartshouldshowtheeffectsofourmoreextendedsphere.Knowing, as we do, that France was the central district—the very heart—ofMediæval art, should we not be insane not to study well her gloriousmonuments, and, having studied them, to enrich our own style by the manylessonswemaylearnfromthem?Ithasbeensuggestedthatweshoulddothis,

with a special regard to those of the provinces of France which were oncesubjected to theEnglish kings. Iwould not reject the historical interestwhichthisconnectionnaturallygivesrise to,andIdoubtnot that thoseprovincesarerichininstruction;butIwouldnotonthataccountneglectthefactthatitistheroyaldomainofFrance—thedistrictofwhichParisisthecentre—whichwasthespecial focus of our art.Look again at the ancient cities ofGermany—perfectstorehousesofoldarchitecture:letusneverbesosuicidalastorejectthelessonstheyoffer!“Sofar,”somemay,however,say,“isallverywell;but,forgoodnesssake, do not cross the Alps! Ruskin has driven you all mad about Venetian,Veronese,andFlorentinearchitecture:bemoreofmenthantobeledastraybypopularwriting.Youcannotbut see that ItalianGothic isverycorrupt, thoughsomehoworanotherverycaptivating.Listennot,then,tothesiren’ssong;rejecttheenticingbait,norpollutethepurestreamofNorthernartwiththecorruptedwatersoftheSouth.”

Iadmitthatthereissomegroundforsuchacaution:—thereisamysteriousfascination about Italy, which has led astraymanywho have visited it beforetheyhadgroundedthemselvesfirmlyuponaNorthernfoundation;but is thisareasonforrejectingallthelessonssheoffers?WasnotItalythelandofancientart,ofpainting,ofsculpture,ofmosaic-work?Isshenotthelandofmarblesandrichly-colouredmaterial, and the landof ancientmunicipal institutions, andofthe edifices to which they gave birth? Her Romanesque architecture was theparentstockofourown;andifourGothicwasinitsturnthestemfromwhichhers sprang, surely its transplantation into so prolific a soil offers the greatestpossibleprimâfaciegroundsforexpectingarichvarietytospringforthfromit—andsuchhasbeentheresult.Itisforustouseitwithjudgment:rejectingwhatisinitsownnaturedefective;notbringingintotheNorthanyfeatureswhicharetheresultofaSouthernclimate,butjudiciouslycullingsuchsuggestionsaswillwith advantage unite themselves to our English nucleus; and especially let ustakeadvantageofthelessonsitaffordsusintheuseofrichmaterialsofmosaicand fresco painting, and in any suggestions it offers for the perfecting of ourseculararchitecture.Onlyletusdosowithjudgment,neverforgettingthatitisinEnglandthatweareworking,andthatifweborrowideasfromFrance,fromGermany,orfrommoresouthernlands,thoseideasmustbeexpressedinEnglish—a language in art, as in literature, of whose antecedents we find abundantcausetobeproud.

Letusalsorememberthat,thoughwemustbeeverlearning,itisnotbythisalone that anart is tobegenerated; thatwemustact for ourselves, aswell aslearn from others; and that it is to our own vigorous andmanly exertionswe

musttrusttomaketheartwearerevivingshapeitselftothenecessitiesandthespiritoftheagewelivein.

LECTUREVI.

TheRationaleofGothicArchitecture.

Contradictoryopinionsas to thecharacterandoriginofGothicArchitecture—Truecausesof itsorigin—Thearch—TheRomanseminentlypractical—Twodefectsintheirarchitecture—Practicalimprovements—Use of small materials—Arches in rims—Sub-ordinating rims—Imposts—Pilaster capitals—Decorativecolumns—Romanesquearchdecorations—Labels—Clusteredcolumns—Weightofarchesoncolumns—Doorways—Windows—Rejection of ancient rules of proportion—Efforts to improveconstructionanddecorationinthetwelfthcentury—Absolutedemandforanarchoflesspressureandforanabutmentofgreater resistance—Ribbed asdistinguished fromarris vaulting—Reasons for adoptingtheformer—Pointedarchaseffectingproportion.

INmyformerlecturesIhaveendeavouredtotraceoutthehistoryofthatcourseoftransitionbywhichtherudearcuatedarchitecturewhichprevailedinWesternChristendom,duringthedarkagesbetweenthefalloftheRomanempireandtherise ofmodern civilisation,—commonly known as the “Romanesque” style,—firstemancipateditselffromitssemi-barbariccharacter,andbecameaconsistentround-arched style, and subsequently, by a perfectly logical series of changes,resulting from the suggestions partly of scientific construction, and partly ofartistic refinement, developed itself into that new, original, and beautiful stylewhichhasinmoremoderntimesreceivedtheveryabsurd,butnowunavoidable,nameofGothicarchitecture.

Having traced thisdevelopmentup towhat Iconsider tobe itsculminatingpoint—theformwhichitarrivedattowardstheendofthethirteenthcentury—ithadbeenmyintention,beforeIproceededfartherwiththehistoricalviewofthesubject,tohavegivenaseriesofshortpracticaltreatisesonseveralofthemoreimportantelementsofthestylewhosehistoryIhavetracedout;as,forinstance,on the principles of Gothic vaulting, on tracery, on the system ofmouldingsbelonging to the style;onroofing; onarchitecturalcarving and sculpture, etc.,etc.Circumstances,however,havingrendereditimpracticableformejustnowtodevotetoitthetimewhichwouldbenecessarytodojusticetothesesubjects,Ipurposeonthepresentoccasiontocontentmyself—attherisk(Imaysaywiththecertainty)ofrepeatingwhatIhavealreadystated—withaninquiryintotherationaleofthestyleofarchitectureofwhichIhavebeentreating.

Suchan inquiry is themorenecessaryfromtheextraordinarycontrarietyofopinionwhichwefindtoexistastotherealcharacterofthestyle,aswellastheexternalandinternalcausesofitsdevelopment.Suchopinionsassumethemostcontradictoryforms.Oneclassofthemmaybedenominatedthereligiousviewofthequestion.UnderthisheadonepartydescribesitasChristian,andanotheras Roman Catholic architecture. One attributes to its various parts a deepsymbolisation of Christian truth; another discovers in them nothing but themysticarcanaofRomanism;whileanothercutstheknotbyprotestingthatitis

Mahometan architecture. A second class of opinions assumes an ethnologicalform.UnderthisheadsomehavethoughtthestyleespeciallyEnglish;somepre-eminentlyGerman; some, again, in themost exclusive and straitened senseofthe term, French; and others (in the widest sense) Teutonic; while theentanglementisagaincutthroughbythechampionsoftheSaracenicclaim.

Then comes a political class of disputants. One declares the style to benothingmore or less than the visible exponent of feudalism. If the system ofDuranduswereapplied to thisview,we shouldperhapshave theordersof thearch shown to represent the divisions of feudal aristocracy.—The point of thearch to be the king; the outer voussoirs the great, and the inner the lesser,vassals; the clustered pillars to be the bishops surrounded by their clergy; theashlarstonesthefreemen;therubblestonesthevillainsandserfs;themortartobe the bond of union or of slavery bywhich thewhole systemwas cementedtogether;andthepaintedglasstobethatclericalmonopolyoflearningbywhichthe pure light of knowledge was imparted through an artificially-colouredmedium.Othershave,however,shownthatthestyledevelopeditselfjustwhenfeudalismwas givingway, and just among those very communitieswhoweremost resolutely exerting themselves for its overthrow; and that, in Englandespecially,itsynchroniseswiththefoundationofthoseinstitutionstowhichweowe our liberties and our greatness; while our knot-cutting friends wouldcontemptuouslypooh-poohthewholequestionbysayingthat ithadnothingtodoeitherwithfeudalismorMagnaCharta,butwassimplythenaturalresultoftheCrusades.

Again,astoitsmorepracticalcharacteristics;onepartyclaimsforitthemostunbounded liberty, another denounces it as curbing the free following ofpracticalandartisticrequirements.Theverysamepartysometimesdescribesitasexcludingthelightofday,andsometimesasofferingnoprotectionagainsttheglareofsunshine.Infact,withoutgoingfartherintothesecontrarieties,itmaybesufficienttosaythatamongthosewhohavenotgonemuchintothesubjectnoopinionsaretooinconsistenteitherwithoneanotherorwithfactstofindreadyadvocates.

Myobject in this and the succeeding lecturewill be to show that the styleoriginated in no occult influences; that, if it can be called either Christian,Teutonic,French,English,German,orWesternEuropean,itissoonlyinaplain,straightforward,andhistorical,andnotinanyhidden,exclusive,ormysterious,sense;but that it, in fact,arose fromtheapplicationofplaincommonsense toplainpracticalrequirements;thatmanyoftheserequirementswerenotpeculiarto the period, but belong to all time; thatmanywere not limited to a race or

climate, but are common, with certain modifications, to different races andcountries;andthattheapplicationofthesameclassofcommonsensetoalteredrequirementswould produce results by nomeansmilitating against those thusarrivedat,but,onthecontrary,tendingtoenrich,toamplify,andtoaddnewlife,variety,andharmonytotheartwhichithadfirstsuggested.

To judge of the practical reasonableness of a style of building, it is notenough to prove that it answers its purpose; we may pre-suppose that allcivilisedpeoplewouldeffectasmuchasthat—indeed,thatallpeoplewoulddosowhocanconstructatall; for ifuncivilised, theiraimwouldbemoresimpleandmorereadilyattained.

Thequestionis,whetherthepurposeisprovidedforbymeansconsistentwithcommonsense,with the lawsofnature,with thepropertiesof thematerialsathand,andwithoutanexpenditureoflabourandmaterialdisproportionedtotheresult.InthisIdonotrestrictthequestiontomerelyutilitarianresults,butadmitthe artistic element in a degree proportioned to the rank and purpose of theedifice.Iwouldalsowishtoguardmyselfagainstbeingunderstoodtoimplythatthe superior reasonableness of a style of architecture proves a higher state ofcivilisation among the peoplewho use it. Inventions are often accidental, andindependentofhighcivilisation.Thus,thoughanarchisamorerationalmeansofspanningawideopeningthanasingleblockofmarble,theearlyRomanswhousedthearchwereprobablymuchlesscivilisedthantheearlyGreeks,whowereignorantofit.

The Egyptians and the Greeks used most nobly the means of spanningopeningswithwhich theywerebestacquainted,and forwhich theirnumerousquarriesofgraniteandmarblesuppliedthemsoliberallywiththematerials;butsuch a mode of construction is manifestly costly, dependent upon naturalfacilitiesofthemostexceptionalkind,andextremelylimitedinitsapplication.Theuseof thearchobviatesall thesedifficulties,andconsequentlyamodeofconstructionwhich admits the arch ismore rational than onewhich does not.Romanarchitecture,inshort,thanGreek.

TheRomanswere,infact,eminentlyapracticalrace,andtheirarchitectureisin its construction in a high degree practical and rational; they by no meanslimited themselves to theuseofcostlyandbulkymaterials,butunited in theirstructurestheuseofallthematerialsofwhichtheirworld-widedominiongavethem command, and were equally successful in employing in them the moststupendousmassesofmarble, as atBaalbec, thegraniteofEgypt,or the flint-nodulesofKent;andneverhesitatedatspanningthewideststructurewithvaultsofdomesofsuchsolidityasalmost todefy theravagesof theelementsandof

time.Thetwogreatdefectsintherationaleof theirarchitecturewere—first, that,

as the conquerors of the world, the resources at their command were sounlimited thateconomyofmaterialseems tohavebeenalmostdismissedfromtheirconsideration,andtheirprincipleofstaticsseemstohavebeenratherthatofpassiveandinertresistancethanofequilibriumofforces;and,secondly,that,havingadoptedtheartisticfeaturesofGreekarchitecture,theyattemptedtounitethemwiththeirowntotallydifferentsystemofconstruction,inamannerwhichcannotalwaysbesaidtobeconsistentwithreason.

When the nations of modern Europe began to emerge from the chaos ofcenturies,andtogenerateforthemselvesanewcivilisation,theiraim,asregardsarchitecture,seemsrathertohavebeentorecoverthatofancientRome,thantogenerate a new style for themselves; but their limited resources, andunfamiliaritywithwhatisnowdenominated“Classic”art,freedthemfromthetendency to follow their great masters in the two defects which I havementioned.True,theyoftenbuiltwithneedlessmassiveness;butthiswasnottheresultofprofuseness,butofwantofexperience;andwhentheyimitatedorre-used the details ofRoman architecture they applied themwithmore regard topracticalutilitythentoClassicprecedent.

AtfirsttheRomanesquebuilderswereatalowlevelbothastoconstructiveand artistic skill; but all their efforts being directed to practical improvement,they,incourseoftime,succeededingeneratingaveryconsistentround-archedstyle, inwhichevery featuremaybe said tohave resulted, inagreateror lessdegree, from practical reasoning on immediate requirements and on theirexperienceofprecedingdefects.

TheobservationsIhave toofferon thedevelopments thusreasonedoutareintendedtoapplymainlytothoseofthecountriesnorthoftheAlps,butmayinmanypointsbefoundtobeofgeneralapplication.

Oneof thefirstpracticalprinciplesaimedat throughout thewholerangeofMediævalarchitecturewassotoarrangetheirdesignsastofacilitatetheuseofsmallmaterials,andtorenderthemselvesindependentoftheaccidentofhavingquarriesatcommandwhichwouldsupplyvastblocksofstone.Ithappenedthatin the great seats of early art this was of less consequence, for Egypt, Syria,Greece,andItalycontainsuchquarriesintolerableabundance,thougheventheRomansresortedtoconcealedarchesforthesecurityoftheirarchitraves;butinNorthern Europe, though building-stone in most parts abounds, it is quiteexceptionaltofinditatonceinblocksofgreatdimensionsandofstrengthwhichwouldrenderitatrustworthycoveringtoopeningsofanyconsiderablebearing.

Withallour increased facilitiesat thepresentday,wenever find the trabeatedsystemcarriedoutinitsintegritywhenonalargescale;eitherthemiddlestonesofarchitravesaresuspendedbyconcealedarchedjoints,asisthecustomhere,orarevisiblyarched-jointed,asinFrance,ortheentirearchitravesconsistofbrickarchesplasteredover, tomimic the construction they affect but cannot follow.EveninourGothicbuildings,whereeveryfacilityexistsfortheuseofmoderate-sized stone, it is oftenwithmuch difficulty that blocks of a size suited to allpurposescanbeobtained.ThuswiththeHousesofParliament,after thewholekingdom had been ransacked by a geological commission, not only was thequarrytheyrecommendedsummarilyrejectedasincapableoffurnishingstoneofanyreasonablesize,butthesecondquarry,whichwasadoptedinitsplace,andwhichproducedanadmirablematerial,was,afteratime,abandoned,andathirdselected, theproductionsofwhichhave, inother respects than size,proved solamentablyinferior.Thefactisthatitisonlyhereandtherethatwefindquarriesunitingqualityandsizewhichsuitevenourmoderaterequirements;andifsuchisthecasenow,withallourmechanicaladvantagesandfacilitiesoftransit,howmuchmoremustithavebeenfeltindayswhenthemechanicalappliancesoftheancientshadbeeninagreatmeasurelost,andtheRomanroadsbrokenup,whilethemeanswhichweretosupplythesedeficiencieswereyetintheirinfancy.

While, then, at all times and everywhere, it is a desideratum to a rationalsystemofconstructionthatitshouldoffereveryfacilityfortheuseofordinaryandeasily-obtainedmaterial, suchwas thecase inamore thanusualdegree inthoseearlyagesofmodernart.

ThoughtheuniversaluseofthearchbytheRomanesquebuildersobviouslypromoted this object, it would not of necessity lead to its fullest attainment.Archesmaybe,andoftenare,constructedofenormousblocksofstone;and ithadtobestudiedhowtomakegoodconstructionwithsmallmaterials.

Themostobviousmeansofdoingthiswasbybuildingthearchesinrims,aswedoourbrickarches—adeeparch, consistingof severaldistinct arches laidoneovertheother,eachformingthecentreonwhichthenextisbuilt(Fig.136).Bythismodeofbuildinganarchofanydegreeofstrengthmaybebuiltofstonesofthemostmoderatedimensions.Thissystem,consequently,becamegeneralintheRomanesquebuildings.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.136. Fig.137.

Now, a deep arch so constructed, and built square through thewall, has aheavy clumsy appearance, and forms a dark and cavern-like recess. Youmayornamentthevoussoirsandvarytheircolourasyouplease,butstillitisheavy,wantinginplayoflightandshade,andobstructivetothefreepassageoftheraysoflight.Thiswasearlyfeltandearlyobviated.

Inanarchbuiltinseveralrims,itisnotnecessarythatanybuttheouterrimshould be of the full width of the wall. This suggested the system of sub-ordinatingtherims,orrecessingthem,onebehindtheother,soastodividethearchintowhatarecalledorders(Fig.137).

Thisgivesusatonceanewandbeautifulmodeofarching,economical,andadaptedtoallvarietiesofmaterial,givinggreatplayoflightandshade,offeringthegreatestfreedomfortheadmissionoflight,andsuggesting(asweshallsee)aperfectlynewsystemofdecoration.

This division of the arch into receding orders necessitated a correspondingforminthepierswhichsupportedit.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.138. Fig.139. Fig.140.

The first means of relieving the plainness of this block form was theintroductionofanimpostatthespringing,definingthelinewhichseparatesthepierfromthearch(Fig.138).Afterwards theordersof the jambwouldreceivepilastercapitals(Fig.139),andfinallydecorativecolumnswouldbeinsertedintheirplace(Fig.140), thuscompleting thegeneral ideaof thepierandarchasmadeuseofduringtheRomanesqueperiod.

The arch itself was at the same time subjected to various systems ofdecorationsuitedtoitsnormalconstruction.

Itisclearthattheextremeanglesoftheorderscontributebutslightlytotheirstrength.Thesemight,therefore,berounded,chamfered,ormouldedatpleasure.Itbecamecommontoformthemintolargerollsbetweentwohollows,andalsoto cut the order into various mechanical or other forms, as zigzag, etc. etc.,according to the fancyof the architect, fromwhicharose thewhole systemofRomanesquearch-decoration;andasthejunctionofthearchwiththewallabovewas but slightly marked by the change in the direction of the joints, a smallprojectingmouldingwasintroducedbetweenthem,whichwecallthedripstoneor label, which not only drew the line more emphatically but also served toprevent thewaterwhich ran down the face of thewalls fromdiscolouring thearch-mouldings.

Itwill readilybeseen that this logicalandreasonablemodeofconstructingarched openingswould, when applied to arches carried on pillars, lead to theclusteredcolumn.

If thewallwas not thick, the archesmight certainly continue to be of oneorder,andthemostnaturalmodeofsupportingthemwouldthen,asheretofore,besinglecolumns.Where,however,thewallwassothickastogiveitaclumsylookif thearchransquarethroughit, itwouldbedividedintotwoorders,andwouldassumeat its springing a cruciformplan.The impostmust break roundthis figure; and though the columnmight still remain (and often did remain)round (Figs. 141, 142), the abacus only assuming the cross form, the mostnaturalthingwouldbetoformacomplexpillarcomposedoffourshaftsunitedinone,eachapparentlysupportingitsownorderofthearch(Fig.143).

[Imageunavailable]Fig.141. Fig.142. Fig.143.

If the archweredivided into threeorders, amore complex form suggesteditself, containing eight shafts; and as the systemwas carried out, many othercombinationsarosenotnecessarytoenumerate.

Thusweseethattheadoptionofthearchedsystemofconstruction,unbiassedby any pre-existing laws of art, but aided only by the very rational desire toutilisethematerialsmostabundantlyprovidedbynature,ledtotwoofthemostimportantcharacteristicscommontoRomanesqueandGothicarchitecture,viz.,the sub-ordinated arch and the clustered column, with the whole system ofdecoration derived from them; thanwhich no two features can be pointed outwhichhavebeenmorerichlyfruitfulofarchitecturalformsthemostoriginalandbeautiful.

Again, in the mode of bringing down the arch upon columns, theRomanesquebuildersexercisedasounddiscretion.TheGreeksandRomansintheir trabeatedconstruction, reasonablyenough,made their architravesonlyaswide as the upper diameter of their columns, so that whatever projection thecapitals had beyond the shaft, they had the same beyond the architrave also.When,however,yousubstitutetwoarchesfortwoarchitraves,youbringdowntheweightbytwooppositeforces;itsfootingonthecapital,therefore,requiresasmuchsteadimentaspossible.

The Romans, as many of their modern followers, were for a time soinconsistentasnotonlytolimitthearch,likethearchitrave,tothethicknessoftheupperdiameterofthecolumn,butactuallyinterposed,withoutashadowofuse,abitofentablaturebetweenthecolumnandthearch;thus,insteadofdoingall they could to give steadiness to the spring of the arch, they made it astotteringinitsconstructionaspossible.ThiswascorrectedbytheRomansoftheLower Empire, and the arch was placed by them, as reason would dictate,directlyuponthecapital,or(stillmoresensibly)onastrongflatimpostlaidonthe capital; and for this most reasonable step they have in after ages beenpronounced barbarous! The Romanesque architects, taught by common senseratherthanbyprecedent,followedtheirexample.Iftheyimitatedorre-usedtheCorinthiancapital, theylaiduponitsfragileabacusamoretrustworthyimpost,and to give greater steadiment to the foot of the arch theymade it somewhatwider than the diameter of the column—a practice which pervadesMediævalarchitecture,andcontributesgreatlybothtoitsgoodconstructionanditsbeauty.

The systemof constructingdoorways is directly derived fromwhat I havealreadydescribed—asmany recessesbeinggiven to the jambs as the archhasrims,andthesedecoratedwithcolumnsifthoughtgood.Theheadisoftenfilledin with a tympanum supported by corbels in the jambs, both as a field forsculptureddecoration,andtomakethedooritselfsquareinsteadofarch-formed.If this isnotdone, the inner archesaremade to spring fromahigher level, toallowthedoorstoopenwithoutcatchingagainstthem.

Thewindows show the same regard to reason.The inside is nearly alwayswidely splayed, to spread the light equally in the room. The external recessdependedpartlyonthedegreeofarchitecturalcharacteraimedat,andpartlyonthe depth required for the arch.Where the openingswere but narrow, and theresourcessmall,onearch-rimwouldsuffice;andthiswouldoftenbechamferedattheedges,topreventobstructiontolight.

If the opening were wider, and so required a deeper arch, or if thearchitecturaleffectaimedatweregreater,wefindtwoormoresuchordersastheabove,with,perhaps,columnssupportingtheouterones;therecedingorders,ineithercase,doingawaywithundueobstructionoflightorview;thesillalwayswellsloped,tothrowoffthewater,andhavingusuallyastring-coursebelow,topreventitfromrunningdownanddiscolouringthewalls.Inallthis,strictregardtopracticalreasonandutilityismanifest;everystepisarguedoutonthebasisofconstruction and requirement, and every decoration is founded on, and resultsfrom,theconclusionscometoonthesepracticalgrounds.

In domestic architecture, if a window were beyond the width of a singlecasement,asmallpillarwasofteninterposed,andtheinnerorderofthewindowwasdividedintotwoarches,whiletheouterone,iftherewereany,wasinone,thecasementsorshuttersfallingintorebatesinthebackofthecolumn,bywhicha window of double width, which would not otherwise be convenientlyattainable was produced. In window-like openings in which glazing was notneeded—as in triforiums, cloisters, and screens—this system was used forbeauty where not demanded for the same reasons as in windows, and thesubdivisionswereoftenincreasedtothreeorfourunderonecomprisingarch.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.144.—St.Trophimus,Arles.Cloisters,northside.

Inother instancesof thesamekind,where lightarcadingwasneeded,as incloisters, and the wall was too thick to rest upon a single capital, two smallcolumnswereplacedonebehindanother,orasortofbarordoublecorbelplacedonthecapitalofasinglepillartosupportthespringerofthearch,forthesakeofavoidingtheuseofthickpiers,whichwerenotneededforstrength,andwouldobstructviewandlight;andallthesepracticalcontrivancesweremadeelementsofbeautyandvariedeffect.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.145.PrioryChurch,Bridlington.PartofremainsofCloisters.

Another legitimate exercise of reason on the part of the Romanesquebuilders, was the rejection of the fixed rules of proportion observed by theancients between the diameter and height of their columns. These rules weregoodintheirplace,buttheyhadbeenworkedoutforatotallydifferentsystem;andweknowthattheancientsthemselveswereanythingbutasslavishintheiradherence to them as their modern imitators. In a purely arcuated system,however,itbecameclearthatsuchruleswereoutofplaceandinconsistentwithreason.Circumstances,inamajorityofcases,prescribedtheheightofacolumn,from reasonswholly irrespectiveof thequestionof its load. It followed, then,that the diametermust be regulated rather by the load than the height, so thateveryvarietyofproportionbecameadmissible.Take, asanexample, thecryptunder the choir ofYorkminster. Its height beingprescribedby circumstances,and the portion of it required for the vaulting being fixed by thewidth of thearched bays, it followed that the height of the columns was also rigorouslydefined;butsomeofthesecolumnshadtocarrythoseofthechurchabove,andwiththemthewholesuperstructure,whileothershadnoloadbutthevaultingofthecryptandthefloorofthechurch.Surely,then,thesimplestexerciseofreasondictated that their diameters should vary with their load, irrespective of theirheight.Thesystemofclusteringcolumnsbothhelpedtomoderatetheextremesof such variation in proportion, and, at the same time, introduced still widerliberty;for,thoughapierdestinedtocarryavastloadmightbesubdivided,andits apparent proportions thus lightened, the individual shafts of which it wascomposed,nothavingeachitsownproperload,mightbeviewedasdecorativeonly,andbemadeexceedinglythinfortheirheight.Theuseofsuchthinshaftsdid not, however, originate in theMiddleAges.Canina shows in hiswork onDomesticArchitectureDecoratedwithOrnamentsofaLightForm, that itwasfrequent among the ancients, though not often adopted by modern Classicarchitects.Evenforreallyconstructivepillarsitisadmissiblewherethematerialisofremarkablestrength,asinthecaseofmetalcolumns,and,inalessdegree,withthoseofmarbleorgranitewheretheloadisverysmall;butitisespeciallysowhere thecolumnsareofadecorative rather thana functionalcharacter, inwhich case it is not only lawful, but correct, to show this bymaking themofslenderproportions.Theliberty,however,whichIheredefend,must,asallotherliberty,bekeptwithinreasonablebounds,andmustberegulatedbyacorrecteyeandsoundjudgment.

Anothersoundexercise,asIthink,ofreasonandliberty,whichwasuniversalamong the Romanesque and Byzantine architects, was the departure from theruleof theancients thatallcapitalsandotherrecurringobjectsofa likenatureshould be worked to one and the same pattern. It may be that the unity of acolonnade,unitedbyasingleandunbrokenentablature,demandedthis.IamnotfindingfaultwithitinGrecianorRomanarchitecture;butwherethecapitalsareseparatedbyarches,ordidnotformacontinuousrangeatall,theeffectwouldbemostpainfullymonotonousifthesculpturedcapitalswereallalike,asifcastinamouldbythehundred.Weaccordinglyfinditestablishedasauniversallawthat,thoughmouldedorothermechanically-formedcapitalsmight,ifyouplease,bealike,nosuchslaveryshouldbeimposeduponthesculptor;butthatheshouldhave the fullest scope, within the reasonable limits suggested by therequirementsandthegeneralbalanceandharmonyofmassandoutline,forthefreestexerciseofhisownimagination.

Now, thoughtheseandotherdevelopmentsof theRomanesqueperiodwerefounded on a thoroughly practical and logical course of reasoning, it by nomeansfollowsthataperfectedformofarcuatedarchitecturehadyetbeenarrivedat,anymorethanthatthedecorativesystemhadbeenbroughtintoathoroughlyrefinedorartisticform.

Towards themiddleof the twelfthcentury theeffortsof thearchitectswereredoubled towards the attainment of these two objects; and the advancementmade, both in correcting defects in construction and refining the decorativesystem,weremost strenuously followed up, and all improvementsmadewerefoundedstrictlyonreason.Thegreatconstructivedifficultymetwitharosefromthepowerfuloutwardpressureoftheroundarchwhenofgreatspanorcarryinganygreatload,andespeciallysowhenusedinsituationswhereitwasdifficulttogiveitanyverymassiveabutment.

The cases of failure from this causeweremost frequent; somuch so, thatbesides thenumerous instances recordedof buildingswhollyor inpart fallingfrom the failure of the arches, we find among the buildings still remainingabundantevidencesoftheinsufficiencyoftheroundarchesfortheirload,andoftheabutments to resist theirpressure. Inordinaryarchitecturewecannot,as inbridges,viaducts,etc.,giveourarchesanunlimitedabutmentproportionedtothepressure, whatever it may be; we are limited in our means of doing this byinnumerablecauses:thus,inacentraltower,ifthearmsofthecrosshaveaisles,the natural abutments of the tower arches are reduced to the frail aid of acontinuous arcade upon detached pillars; and even if there are no aisles, theabuttingwallsareperforatedwithwindows.Theabutments,again,ofachancel

archareperforatedeitherbyarchesorwindows,while thegableover thearchloadsitheavilyatitsweakestpoint.Theabutmentofanarch,again,hasoftentoimpingeuponapierathalf itsheight,as in thecaseofanavearcadeabuttingupon the detached piers of a central tower. In all such situations the unduepressureoftheroundarchwasfoundtobemostprejudicial.Stillmorestronglywasitfeltwherethenavewasspannedbystonevaulting.TheRomanshadgotoverthis,asintheBathsofDiocletian,bybreakingthecontinuityoftheaislesbyvastabuttingwallsacross them.But inachurch thiswas impracticable. Itsuses demanded continuity of aisle and moderation in the size of the pillars.Failures often occurred from these adverse causes, and the ingenuity of thearchitectswasnaturallydirectedtoobviatingthedefect.

Ihave,inapreviouslecture,describedtheseriesoftentativeexperiments,allof them dictated by constructive and practical requirements, by which it wasattemptedtoavoidthesedifficulties.Iwillnotwearyyoubyrecapitulatingthem.The two obvious desideratawere an arch of less pressure and an abutment ofgreater resistance; and these were the two objects aimed at in most of thesucceeding developments. The first demandwasmet by the pointed arch; thesecondby the systematiseduse of the buttress,whether of the solid or archeddescription. It was perfectly well known that the outward thrust of an archdiminished as its height increased; that the resisting power of an abutmentdependedmainlyonitsextensioninthedirectionofthepressure;andthatwheresufficientextensionofabutmentcouldnotbeobtainedwithoutinconvenienceordissight,thedeficiencymightbecompensatedbyloadingitfromabove:andbyarguing on these three facts the constructive characteristics which distinguishGothicfromRomanesque,orthepointed-archedfromtheround-archedGothic,werelogicallyworkedout.

Thestrictlymathematicalmodeofincreasingtheheightofanarchwould,Isuppose,bebyusingasemi-ellipse, itsmajoraxisbeingvertical.The form is,however, most unpleasing to the eye and troublesome in execution, from itsconstant variation of curvature, so that by far the most natural and practicalmeansofeffectingtheobjectistheadoptionofanarchoftwocentres,orwhatiscommonlycalled the“pointedarch.”Weaccordinglyfind,as Ihaveshownbyampleevidenceinapreviouslecture,thatthisformwasinthefirstinstanceusedjustinthosesituationsinwhichareductionofoutwardpressureoranincreasedpowerofbearingweightwereofthegreatestimportance.Ihaveshownthatthisformwasnot adopted at first as amatter of taste, of fashion, or of fancy; noreven,ashasbeensuggestedbyahighlytalentedwriter,asameansofmeetingthe difficulties arising from the varied heights of the arches of vaulting, but

simplyfromstructuralandmechanicalnecessity.Itmattersnotwhethertheformwas new or old, whether it occurred to them without external suggestion, orwhethertheysawitintheEast,intheirownintersectingarcades,orinthefirstproposition of Euclid. It was not the seeing of it in any such manner whichcauseditsintroduction,butthesimplefactthattheyhadarrivedinthecourseoftheirconstructivedevelopmentatapracticalproblemofvitalimportance,whichabsolutelydemandedthepointedarchforitssolution.

The first situations in which the pointed arch was substituted for thesemicircle are the wide spanning arches of vaulting and the arches carryingcentral towers andgables.Wenext find it in thewidearchesofnavearcades;anditisnot,asageneralrule,tillitbecamecustomaryinthosepositionswhereitwas demanded for practical reasons, that it began to be used as amatter oftasteinotherpositions.

Having secured the first object—an arch of reduced pressure—the second,viz., the abutment of an increased resistance, was attained by the systematicdevelopmentofthebuttress—afeatureverymuchneglectedbytheRomanesquebuilders;and,asthevaultingofaloftynavecouldnotbedirectlysupportedbytheordinarybuttress,thearchedorflyingbuttresswasintroduced,spanningtheaisles and conveying the pressure to the buttresses beyond. That this wasintroducedforutilityonly,andnotfromtaste,isprovedbytheattemptsinearlyinstances to conceal it; so that wemay with certainty conclude that all thesebeautifulfeaturesofGothicarchitectureoriginatednotfromtasteorcaprice,butfromreasoninguponpracticalandurgentlypressingconstructionalrequirements,andthatthebeautiestowhichtheygaveriseproceededfromtheapplicationtothemofthegreatprincipleofGothicarchitecture,thedecorationofconstructiveorusefulfeatures.

Letus,however,supposeforamomentthatourbuildingisnotvaulted,buthastimberroofs;therestillremainsanadvantageintheuseofthepointedarch.Ifithas,forinstance,acentraltower,thedemandforanarchofreducedthrustisstillgreaterthanifthechurchhadbeenvaulted,forthearmsofthecross,fromtheirreducedweight,arelesseffectiveasabutments.

Thechancelarch,again,demandsheight,andthemoresoifitbewide,asinourowndayisnecessary.Thenavearcadesarebetterpointedthanround,asareanyotherscarryinganyconsiderableweight.Buttressesremainnecessaryattheends of the arcades, and are desirable as a steadiment to the outer walls,particularly where roofs without a direct tie are made use of, and are furtheruseful as permitting the introduction of larger windows than might be safewithoutthem.Inallcases,indeed,whereroofsorfloorsaresoconstructedasto

concentrate pressure upon points, it is clear that buttresses are desirable; andwhentheefficientsizecannotbegiventhemwithoutinconvenienceordissight,it is equally clear that the deficiencymay be readily compensated by loadingthemwith loftypinnacles. It iswrong tousebuttresseswithoutanyobjectbutappearance,but therearenumbersofcaseswhere theyareofgreat advantage,besides those inwhichwe know them to be indispensable. If somany of ourarchedandvaultedbuildingsinthesedayswerenotmerepretencesinlathandplaster,weshouldhavemorepracticalexperienceoftheneedofthebuttressandofthepointedarch.IwasoncetoldbytheEnglishCommissionerinScindethattheEuropeanengineershaddifficultyinmakingthenativebuilderstherebelievethatanybutapointedarchwillstand.

Letusnowinquireasbrieflyasmaybeintotherationaleofribbedvaultingasdistinguishedfromthearrisvaultingof theRomanandearlierRomanesquebuilders.

A groined vault does not of absolute necessity demand the use of ribs anymorethantheplainwaggon-headvault.Eventhelatterwasfromanearlyperiodfrequently divided into compartments or bays by transverse ribs, which wereuseful as a means of giving it rigidity; but in groined vaulting these were ofnearly constant use, both for the same reason, and because the vault, beingreducedatitsspringingtosonarrowafooting,requiredthisadditionalstrength.Thearrises,however,ordiagonallinesofintersection,werealwaysleftwithoutribs.

Why, then, was the custom changed? For two important reasons. The firstwas this: that the intersection forms naturally a feeble line, both from thedifficulty,particularlywiththeroughmaterialsusuallyemployed,ofmakingitsconstructionsound;fromitsforminganarchofgreatlyincreasedwidthwithoutcorrespondingincreaseofheight:andfromitsreductionatthespringingleveltoapin’spoint.

Thesecondwasofamoreintricatenature,andrequirestobeexplainedmorein detail.When the two intersecting vaults of a groin are similar and equal intheirsection,orwhenthesectionofoneisthemathematicalresultantofthatofthe other, the line of intersection falls in a plane. When vaulting, however,became general, all sorts of irregularly-formed spaces would have to be socovered, and would present problems of considerable difficulty, in which itwouldbeimpossibleinallcasesthatthevaultingsurfacesshouldbeportionsofcylinders or regular cylindroids, and inwhich the intersecting lines could not,withoutmuchtwistingofthesurfaces,bebroughttofallintoplanes.

The introduction of the diagonal rib met both of these difficulties. It

strengthenedtheweakangleandgaveitasubstantialfooting;anditatthesametime gave to the lines of intersection a certain degree of independence of thevaultingsurfaces;sothat,insteadofthesurfacesgoverningtheintersection,theywerethenceforthgovernedbytheribs,andthelattercouldbemadetofallintoplanes, and to avoid unsightly forms even in vaulting spaces of the mostirregularandabnormalforms.

The substitutionof the rib for the arrisworked as great a revolution in theprinciplesofvaultedconstructionasdid thepointedarch itself.Nothing in thewayofvaultingwasnowimpracticableorunsightly;thearchitectwasabsolutelymasterofhiswork,andcoulddowhathelikedwithit.Thefacilitiesitoffersarequitemarvellous in the eyes of themodern practicalmanwhen once they areopenedto them.Ihavemyselffoundoneof themostpracticalmenIevermetwith,who had for years taken the leadingmanagement of the business of thegreatest builder of our day, though hitherto uninitiated inGothic construction,almostinecstasiesatfindingadifficultprobleminvaultinghehadbeenpuzzledoverfordaysandmakingmodelsofinvain,solvedinaninstantbyseeingtheabsolutelibertyofactionexercisedinasimilarcaseinWestminsterAbbey.Theold builders themselves perfectly luxuriated in their newly-discovered liberty:notonlycouldtheyvaultspacesofanyconceivableplan,everydimensionofitvarying,andthedifficultiesincreasedbythenecessityofpushingupwindowsinits sides in all kinds of difficult positions, but they could make the result sopleasingandapparentlysostraightforwardandnatural,thatnotoneobserveroutofa thousandever findsout that therewasanydifficulty tobegotoveratall.Sometimes, indeed,we find them rejoicing somuch in their freedomas to setthemselvesneedlesspuzzlesfortheveryluxuryofsolvingthem.Thereisamostremarkable instance of this in the crypt under Glasgow Cathedral, where thepillarswhichsupportthefloorhavebeenplacedinavarietyofintricatepositionsfornoreason,apparently,buttoproducecuriousperplexitiesinthevaultingandcreatestrangeproblems,forthemerepleasuretobederivedfromtheirsolutionandthebeautyofthepuzzlewhensolved.[59]

It has been argued that the Gothic vault is less refined than some of theprevious forms, because less strictly mathematical; that a refined system ofconstructionshouldinallcasespossessanexactmathematicalsolution,thoughthebuildermay,whenoncemasterofthetruetheory,departfromitinexecution;that the work, in short, though irregular in execution, should be perfect andmathematicallyaccurateinitstheoreticaltype.

I agree with this doctrine in the main; but I hold that the Gothic vaultcomplieswithitsconditions.

The square groined vault,with semicircular arches, is perfect in its theory,and gives elliptical arches for its arris lines. The same, if vaulted with thepointed arch, is equally true in theory, for the diagonal ribs may be pointedarches, formed each of portions of two ellipses. The oblong vault, again, isperfect if thewidearch is a semicircle, thenarrowoneavertical semi-ellipse,and the arrises horizontal semi-ellipses of the same height; but the ancientsgenerallychosetostiltthenarrowarchinsteadofusingtheverticalellipse,andbydoingso threwthediagonalarrisoutof theplaneandoutofshape;but thetheoretical form remained, nevertheless, perfect. In like manner, if the samefigure be vaulted across itswidest span by a pointed vault, and if the narrowvault have a pointed arch composed of two portions of ellipses, and theintersections be of the same figure as resulting geometrically from theintersectionof the twovaults, the theoretical form isperfect.Now, if in eithercasethearchitect thinkstheellipticalpointedarchesinferiorinbeautytothosecomposedofpartsofcircles,andbyusing ribs findshimselfenabled to throwthe error resulting from the substitution of the latter form into the vaultedsurfaces where it will be invisible, surely he is only using that discretionarypowerofintroducingirregularitiesuponaperfecttheorywhichisclaimedashisright;andthisisexactlywhattheGothicarchitectsintroduced.

Thefactisthat,besidesitsunpleasingform,especiallywhenthemajoraxisisvertical, theuseof theellipseentails suchanannoyingseriesofdifficultiesasgreatly to increase the trouble and consequent cost of execution.The constantchangeofcurvature, the troublesomemethodsofstriking it,andoffinding thetruelinesofthearch-joints,nottomentionthemathematicalfactthatthesamejoint line is never true both for the extrados and intrados, and that, if the rib-mould remains unchanged in depth, the extrados and intrados cannot be bothtrue ellipses at all; all these furnish quite sufficient practical reasons for itsrejection in cases where not only is there no necessity but an abstractmathematicalideatobesatisfiedbyitsuse,butthebeautyoftheworkisgreatlyimprovedbydispensingwithit.

Though the pointed archwas introduced from purely constructive reasons,therewasanotherofamoreæstheticalnature,whichrendereditsadoptionmoregeneral when once introduced. It was a double one; not only did the generaltendency towards loftyproportions render it necessary tomakeuseof an archmoreinharmonywiththegeneralfeelingofthearchitecture,buttherejectionofafixedcodeofproportionsforpillarsandotherpartsdemandedforthearchanequal power of varying its ownproportions.The semicircular arch is absoluteandinvariable,andthoughtheuseofsmallersegmentswouldmeetthecasein

onedirection,therewerenomeansofproportioningittofeaturesofincreasingheight. This was attempted both in Romanesque and Byzantine works by theexpedientofstilting,butthisis,afterall,moreasemblancethanareality.Asincasesalreadycited,themathematicalsolutionoftheproblemistheellipse;butonly imagine anything sounpleasing as a series of elliptical archesplaced thelength-wayupwards!Goodtastewouldnotsufferit.Butthepointedarchatoncemet thedifficulty.To illustratemymeaning, Iwillbegyou to takean internalbay of a Norman cathedral (Fig. 146), and to suppose yourselves to have toincreaseitsheightthroughoutintheratioofone-third(Fig.147).

[Imageunavailable]Fig.146. Fig.147.

Youfirst,aftersettingoutyourwidthsasintheoriginal,increasethewholeheightandthatofeachstoreybyone-third;youthenincreasethepillarsandthejambs of the triforium and clerestory windows in the same proportion: thisbringsyoutoastand,forthearches,beingsemicircles,areinvariable.Eitheryoumust leave them unaltered and throw all the extra height into the wall abovethem,oryoumuststiltthemeachtotheextentofone-thirdoftheirheightunlessyoucanmakeuseofanelasticarchwhichwillchangeitsproportionatpleasure.The ellipse occurs and meets the case, but it offends your eye. At length,however,thepointedarchsuggestsitself,andgetsridofthewholedifficulty.SosimilarareaRomanesqueandanEarlyPointedbayinallotherrespects,thatthechangeofproportionwhichIhavedescribedseemsatoncetoeffectthewholechangeinstyle.

Had the constructionalmotive alone existed, the pointed formwould havebeenconfinedtoarchesofconsiderablespan;butthedemandforavariablearchadding æsthetic to the constructional claim, caused its speedy adoption inpositions where strength alone would not have demanded it, though thesemicircle, the plain segment, and the segmental pointed arch, were, at allsubsequentperiodsofthestyle,usedsidebysidewiththetruepointedform.

Ihavebeenthemoreparticularinshowingthetruereasonsforthechangeinthe formof the arch, because the greatmajority ofwriters treat it purely as amatter of taste and of altered fashion; indeed, some excellent writers on thehistoryofMediævalarchitecturehavestrangely imaginedthat thepointedarchhadagreateroutwardthrustthantheround,andthattheincreasedprojectionofthe buttresses was necessitated by its use, instead of the two beingsimultaneouslyintroducedasadoublemeansofavoidingtheevilsexperiencedfromthegreatthrustoftheroundarchandthesmallbuttressesbywhichithad,duringtheRomanesqueperiod,beenaccompanied.

Iwillnowclosemypresentlecture,buthopeinthenexttocarryonthesameinquiry into a number of other details, as well as into the general spirit andprinciplesofthearchitectureofwhichIamtreating,andtoaddsomepracticalremarksontheapplicationoftherationalethustracedouttoourpresentrevivalofthestyle,andsuchdevelopmentsasitmaygiveriseto.

LECTUREVII.

TheRationaleofGothicArchitecture—Continued.Thebasesofathirteenthcenturychurchindicatetheplanandconstructionofthevaulting—Thesystemofmouldings—Windows, their development—Rationale of stained glass—A general principle ofornamentation common to all good architecture—The roof—Secular buildings—ClothmarketYprès—Warehouses,Nuremburg—Windowsinsecularandecclesiasticalbuildings—Trabeatedarchitectureinitstruest forms—Fireplaces—Chimney-shafts—Oriel and Dormer windows—Ceilings—Subordination ofexternal design to internal requirements—Designs adapted to the materials most readily obtained—Conditionsdemandedofourfuturearchitecture—Gothicarchitecturewellfittedtounitetheseconditions.

INmylastlectureItracedouttherationaleofanumberoftheleadingfeatures,both of Romanesque as distinguished from Roman architecture, andsubsequentlyofGothicasdistinguishedfromRomanesque.Iwillendeavourtoavoid wearying you by carrying the inquiry into too great a multiplicity ofdetails, but I must, nevertheless, ask your indulgence while I pursue themsomewhatfurtherthanIhaveyetdone.

Nothingwould,perhaps,domoretoshowthereasonablenessofthevariousdevelopmentsinquestionthantotraceoutthedetailsofthevaultingsystem;toshow the varieties it exhibited in different countries and provinces and atdifferentperiods, thevariousmodesadopted foreffectingagivenpurposeandthe many mechanical and other difficulties to be contended with, and themethodsadoptedofmeetingthem.Thisis,however,soextensiveandsointricateasubject,that,ifIhaddevotedthesetwolecturesexclusivelytoit,Icouldbarelyhave done it justice. Iwill, therefore, at present contentmyselfwith referringthose of you who are anxious to make yourselves acquainted with it, to anadmirable and elaborate essay on the subject by Professor Willis, in theTransactions of the Institute of British Architects, and to the article“Construction,”inthefourthvolumeofViolletleDuc’sDictionary.Noonewhohasnotgonecarefullyandpracticallyintothesubjectcanhaveanyideaoftheamountofforethoughtwhichitdemands;somuchsothat,asViolletleDucsays,thedesign for avaultedbuildinghas tobe commenced at the top andworkeddownwards; andwemayoften formapretty correct idea, from thebasesof athirteenthcenturychurch,ofwhatwastheplanandconstructionofitsvaulting.

This principle of designing each part from the first with reference to itsultimate intention is very stronglymarked inFrenchworks of the twelfth andthirteenthcenturies,andinthoseofthetransitionalperiodinEngland.Theform,

notonlyofthecapital,butevenofthebaseofeachshaft,usuallyindicatesthedirectionofthearchedribororderwhichitisdestinedtocarry.

Thiswas,however,lostinEnglishworksontheintroductionofthecircularabacus,andImustsaythatmuchexpressionandemphasiswaslostwithit.Notonly,indeed,didtheabacusinFrenchworkfaceorpointinthedirectionofthearchedrib,butitsplanwasoftenmadetofittoitinthemostdirectmanner,andeven the direction of the principal stalks of the foliage had reference to thesupportedrib(Fig.148).

[Imageunavailable]Fig.148.—LaonCathedral.RespondinChoirAisle.

The system of moulding, again, follows out the same laws of reason. Anarch-moulding, for instance, is foundedonwhat is supposed tobe theoriginalsectionoftheorderorrib.Thus,if thenormalsectionoftheribbesquare,thesectionofthemouldingsismadetofittothatfigure(Fig.149);ifchamferedorapartofanoctagon,themouldings,again,fittoit(Fig.150); theabacusineachcasetakingthenormalplanoftheribs.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.149.

Fig.150.Fig.151.

As to æsthetical forms, the mouldings were studiously arranged so as toproduce in some parts the greatest contrasts, in others the most elegantgradationsof lightandshade.Theheavinessof largerollmouldingswasoftenrelievedbyfilletsorbyraisededgesor“keels,”bywhichdiversitywasgainedwithoutlossofmass(Fig.151).

Hollows,again,wererelievedbythe insertionofsparklingornaments,suchasthetoothedornament,therosette,theball-flower,thefour-leavedflower,andmanyothers;andinotherinstancesbytheintroductionofbandsoffoliage.ThesectionsofmouldingdifferedentirelyfromthoseofRomanarchitecture,beingfarmorefreeandlessmechanical,andatoncemoredelicateinfeelingandmorecarefully studied with reference to light and shade. They resembled Greekmouldings,infact,farmorethanRoman.

Enrichedmouldingsdifferedfromtheusualpracticeinantiqueworkinthisrespect,thattheenrichmentwasaddedtoinsteadofbeingcutoutoftheoriginalmoulding;itspracticalusebeingtostrengthenthehollowsratherthentoenrichthe rounds. In this respect the practice of the Romanesque builder had beendifferent;andperhapsaunionof the twosystemswouldbebetter thanacloseadherencetoeither.

Mouldingswhich receivemuchrain,ascopings,cills, topsofcornicesetc.,wereverymuchmore sloped than inClassicwork, so as to throwoff thewetmore rapidly.The custom inmodernClassic buildings,where the stone is notvery hard, of putting lead on the upper surface, as well as the damage oftensustained when this is neglected, show the reasonableness of this increasedslope.Theyhadtodowithamorerainyclimate,andgenerallywithsofterstone,than the ancients, and they designed theirwork accordingly. The under sides,again,ofprojectingmouldings,asstring-courses,drip-stones,water-tables,cills,etc.,werecarefullydesignedsoastopreventthewetfromrunningroundthem.Basemouldingsroundbuildingsweredesignedinsuchamannerasbothreallyand apparently to give it a substantial footing, and at the same time to addgreatlytoitsbeauty;manyofthemareasnoblecombinationsascouldeasilybeconceived.[60]

Inshort,itmaybeasserted,withoutfearofcontradiction,thatinnostyleofarchitecturehasasystemofmouldingbeengeneratedsofullofvarietyandsocapable of suiting itself to every position; and not only to provide for the

practicaldemandsof eachposition,but togive to each just thatkindof effectwhichitmostdemanded.

Letusnowproceed toconsider thewindow. In thedaysofancientGreece,and in the earlier days of Rome, windows were necessarily kept in a veryundevelopedform,throughthenon-existenceofwindowglass;somuchso,thatin Classic architecture the window seems a thing shunned as an unhappynecessity;andtheimperfectmanufactureanddearnessofthismaterial,nodoubt,influenced,inaconsiderabledegree,thearchitectureofthelaterRomanandtheimmediately succeeding periods. In churches and other vaulted buildings,another cause would lead to the use, during the last-named (i.e., theRomanesque) period, of as small windows as would just answer the purpose.Theunaidedthicknessandthewholelengthof thewallbeingreliedonfor theabutment of the vaulting, it naturally followed that perforationswere asmuchavoided as possible, as tending to reduce the abutting mass. Accordingly, asbuttresses increased in projection, greater and greater openings in the curtainwallwereventuredon,simplybecausetherewasstrengthsufficienttoadmitofthem, till, when Pointed architecture received its full development, and thepressureof thevaultswasentirelyconcentratedupon thebuttresses, thewholeinterveningspacemight,ifneedful,beconvertedintowindows.

Simultaneously with this change, the increasing use of stained glassnecessitatedacorrespondingincreaseintheareaofwindowopening,sothatwehave one development facilitating, and the other rendering necessary, theconstantenlargementandmultiplicationofthewindows.

The primâ facie mode of obtaining increased window light would be bywidening theopenings; but as this, if carried too far,would at once injure thebeauty of the window and cause inconvenience in glazing it, the more usualcourse adopted was to increase the number. Hence the couplets, triplets, andmore numerous groups of the Early English windows. These groups, whenplaced in a sidewall andunder a level roof-plate,wouldnaturally assume theformof arcadesof equalheight; butwhenunder agable, an arched roof, or avaultedbay,theyincreasedinheighttowardsthecentre,—thusgivingusthetwomostfamiliarformsofgrouping.Thesectionsofthejambswerearranged(asinthe earlier period) in the manner best suited to the admission of light—carebeingtakenexternallytoavoiddeepshadowsupontheglass,andinternally, todispersethelightasreadilyaspossiblethroughthebuilding.

Indomesticbuildings,wherewindowshave to serve thedoublepurposeofadmittingthelightandfacilitatingexternalview,theywerenotusuallygroupedasabovedescribed,butweremadewiderintheiropenings,theunpleasanteffect

whichmightotherwisearisefromitbeingobviated,andtheglazingandopeningofthewindowrenderedmoreeasybytheuseofthinmullionsorpillarsdividingthewindowintotwoormorelights.Thissystemofferedadvantagessoobviousthat it was very soon adopted for churches also; so that, instead of obtainingincreased light,asheretofore,by the indefinitemultiplicationofcomparativelysmall windows, it became customary now, for the first time in the history ofarchitecture, tomakewindowsofanysizewhichtheirpositionorutilitymightdictate; the whole end of a church and the entire bays of its flanks beingoccupied,ifneedbe,bysinglewindows.

Now, nothing could bemore rational than this development. Themode ofglazinginusewasmostconvenientlyapplicabletospacesofmoderatewidth.Itistruethatbythemoreextendeduseofironitwasthen,asithasoftenbeeninmoderntimes,appliedtoopeningsof6,8,oreven10feetinwidth;butnarrowerspacesweremuchmoreconvenient.Thelights,however,atWestminsterAbbey(which is one of the earlier buildings in which this kind of window issystematically used in this country), are 4½ feetwide, and in France they aregenerallymuchmore.Theprevailingpracticeofplacingamassivepierbetweeneachofsuchlightswasobviouslyimperfect.Theconcentrationofpressureuponthebuttressesnowallowedofopeningsofalmostanysize;what,then,wasmorereasonablethantomakeextensiveopenings,andthentosubdividethembylightmullions into compartments at once sightly andconvenient?That thispracticehas sometimes, from caprice, been carried to a vicious excess in no degreemilitatesagainstitsrationale; indeed,withallourmodernfacilitiesforglazingandopeningourwindows,wecontinuallyfindthesameexpedientresortedtoforconvenience, and invariably so when any extraordinary amount of light, andconsequentwidthofwindow,isneeded.

Thenextquestionwhichwouldariseis,howisthearchtobefilledin?Thiswefinddoneatfirstbyaplateortympanumofstoneasthickasthedepthofthemullions, each light being arched, and the tympanumpierced at pleasurewithsuchopeningsassuitedthebuilder’staste;and,lateron,wefindthesepiercingsconnected together into those systematic groups which we call tracery; thusconverting thewindow into a perfectly novel andmost beautiful architecturalfeature.

As I shall havemore to say on the subject ofwindowswhenwe come tosecular architecture, I will limit myself to two remarks. One is this; that inpositions inwhich there isnotmuchheight,where there isnogreat load tobesustained, and where the termination of the wall internally and externally ishorizontal, theMediævalarchitectsbynomeansheld themselvesbound to the

archedform,butreservedperfect liberty toputsquareheads to theirwindows;theotherisapassingremarkontherationaleofstainedglass.Idonotconceiveittobesimplyadecorationorameansofaddingrichcolouring,butthatitalsoarosefromanunconsciousfeelingthat itwasnecessarytotheperfecteffectofan architectural interior that it should be self-inclosed. In a living-room onewishes not only for admission of light, but for facility of looking out at thewindows; and this necessity prevents us from seeing the windows well asarchitecturalfeatures,becausethefocusoftheeyehasconstantlytobechangedin passing from the window itself to the view beyond. In a church, on thecontrary,youdonotwishtolookoutatthewindow,anditisbetterthatitshouldbe filledwith amedium only semi-transparent, andwhich, being at about thesamedistancefromtheeyewiththesurroundingarchitecture,atoncedoesawaywiththenecessityofachangeoffocus,andsuppliesabeautifuldecorationtothemediumbywhichthatobjectiseffected.

I have not yet noticed one of the leading features of the style, and one inwhichitassumesacharactermostpeculiarlyitsown:Imeantheroof.

All previous styles of architecture with which we are acquainted, havingoriginatedinSoutherncountries,hadroofsofalowpitch.Ihavenodoubtthatinmany of those countries there were occasions in which a higher pitch wouldhaveansweredbetter;butasthelowerlineharmonisedbetterwiththegenerallyhorizontal lines of their architecture, andwas found to answer, they naturallyadoptedit.TheRomanesquearchitectureofSouthernEuropehadalsosomewhatlow roofs, andwhen first imported intoGermany the roofswerebynomeanshigh.Gradually,however,asmenforgotitsconnectionwithItaly,andvieweditas belonging to themselves, theywould naturally usewith it the form of rooftheyhadfoundmostserviceableandweremostaccustomedtointheirordinarybuildings; and thus the high roof of the North became engrafted upon theRomanesque style, and became conspicuous feature in external architecture.Happilythischangeharmonisedwellwithitsgeneralcharacter.Thearchseemedto suggest a higher pitch of roof than did trabeated construction, and whengreaterheightwasgenerally introduced,andthepointedarchtooktheplaceoftheround,thehighpitchoftheroofwouldbefoundbettertoharmonisewithit.

I view, then, the high roof as partly the result of climate and partly of theæsthetic tendency of the style. But is it to be considered as an essentialcharacteristicofGothicarchitecture?Bynomeans.Thetruecharacteristicofthestyle is liberty; and in the roof, as in every other feature, perfect freedom isreserved; so thatwe find roofs varying from almost perfect flatness to a veryhigh pitch, a preference being given, cæteris paribus, to the high roof where

therewasnotsomedecidedobjectiontoitsuse.Ininternalconstructionalsotheroofwasfoundedonrationalprinciples,good

construction being always considered before beauty, but the latter made verygenerallytoresultfromit.

Gothictimberroofswouldformasubjectwhichcouldhardlybedonejusticeto under one or two lectures, so Iwill not go farther into them now.Moderncarpentryhasshownushowtoconstructroofswithlesstimberthanwasusedinthesestructures(therewasthenlessnecessityfortheeconomyoftimber),butwehave never done anything to compete with the noble pieces of ornamentedcarpenteringbequeathed to us byourMediæval forefathers.As to coveringofroofs, Imay justmention, inpassing, that though theMediævalbuildersmadeuse of everymaterial which it is customary to use for this purpose, there areseveralwhichcannotbemadeuseofwithanybutahighpitch,andarethereforeunusablewithlowroofssuchasareusedinotherstyles,as,for instance,plaintiles,ordinarystoneslate,shingle,andthatch.

Thenextpoint in therationaleofGothicarchitecture isonewhich Ibynomeans claim as its peculiar property, inasmuch as it is common to all goodarchitecture,thoughcertainlyourstyleissomewhatpre-eminentinitsadoptionof it. I refer to thatgeneralprincipleofornamentationwhich trustsmainly forbeautytotheusefulandconstructivefeaturesofthebuilding,ratherthantothosewhichareintroduceddirectlyforappearance.

Thus, in a noble Gothic building, the ornamental character arises from agreater or less richness in the doorways, in the windows, the buttresses, thecornices,parapets, or other parts needful for the uses or construction of thebuilding.Thisbelongstoallnoblearchitecture,butismorethoroughly,Ithink,carriedoutinGothicthaninotherstyles,andperhapslesssoinmodernItalian,especiallyinwhatiscommonlycalledPaladian,thaninanyother.Idonotlayclaimtoitasanargumentinfavourofonestyleaboveanother,forallought topossessitalike;buttheabsenceofitinaverygreatdealofmodernarchitectureis at least a proof thatmuch reformation is needed among ourselves; and thestrongdegreeinwhichitwasadoptedasamaximbytheGothicarchitectsisaproofofthereasonablenessoftheprinciplesonwhichtheyacted.

There are, of course, in all styles of architecture decorations of a merelygratuitouskind,andwhenlargenessofmeansleadstoprofusion,theyarelikelytobecarriedtoexcess;butinGothicarchitectureofthebestperiodsthebeautyof abuilding (aftergoodproportion,outline, etc., are secured)dependsnotonthis deliberate ornamentation, but on the artistic treatment of the necessaryfeatures. Whatever parts were dictated by practical necessity were the chief

objectsonwhichdecorationwasexpended,andtowhichthearchitecttrustedforthebeautyofhisbuilding.

More especially was it, par eminence, awindow style. Of all the objectsprovidedfor, theadmissionof lightwas the first andchiefest; accordingly, thewindowwasmade,bothwithinandwithout, the leadingsourceofbeauty.It isbythedesignofthewindowsthatwedefinethegradationsofstyle.Itischieflybythewindowsthatwedescribeabuilding,andthefirstquestionaskedaboutaGothic building generally relates to its windows. On them, therefore, wasexpendedalargeportionofthearchitecturaldecoration.Howmarvellous,then,istheinconsistencywhichwemeetwith!—peoplewithonebreathobjectingtoGothic architecture—the offspring of Northern climes—as not admitting lightenough, and urging the use of Southern architecture to obviate the imagineddefect; and then tellingyouof thebeautiesof amodernbuilding,[61] the greatcharacteristicofwhichis,thatitsprincipalfaçadehasnowindowsatall!

Nexttothewindows,thedoorwaysclaimthemostcarefulattention.Indeed,insomerespects,theyhadtheprecedence,inasmuchasofallpartsofabuildingthe doorway is that which challenges the closest inspection. The decorations,consequently,ofdoorwaysarethosewhichcontainthegreatestamountofactualsculpturedart.Itisagreatprincipletoplacesculpturewhereitwillbebestseen;andaseveryonewhoentersabuildingmustofnecessityobtainacloseviewofthe doorways, they were naturally made the great vehicles for sculpture. InFranceespecially,everypartofthedoorwayfrequentlyissculptured.Take,forexample,thewesternportalsofAmiens:thepedestalorbasementofthejambsisdecorated with medallions, illustrating Bible history by bas-reliefs; the jambscontaincolossalstatuesofsaints;thecentralpillarofthegreatdoubledoorwaycontainsthechiefstatue;thetympanumisfilledwithsubjects,andtheordersofthe arch with angelic figures; so that the entire doorways are alive withsculpture.

Thebuttresses,again,thosenaturallyuncouthprojections—mereinertmassesto resist the pressure from within—are rendered beautiful by their statelyproportions and architectural details, the niches and statues which adorn theirrecedingstages,andtheaspiringpinnaclesbywhichtheyarecrowned.

The stone roof-plate, enriched with mouldings and foliage, and, perhaps,supportedonsculpturedcorbels,becomes thecrowninghorizontal feature;andtheparapet—thedefenceoftheworkmenengagedontheroofs—ispiercedintotracery,orformsaminiaturearcade,givingdelicacyandlightnessofeffecttothegenerallymassivestructure;while thebell-tower, raisedhigh tomakeitsvoiceheard from afar, becomes the culminating ornament of thewhole exterior. So

completelywasittherecognisedprincipleofthearchitecturetorendertheusefuland constructive parts sources of decoration, that, where any deliberatedecorationwasmadeuseof,itwasoftenformedofimitationsofconstructionalfeatures,suchaswindowtracery,arcades,gables,pinnacles,columns,etc.

Iamnotpreparedtosaythatthisisinitselftobeapplauded;indeed,Ithinkitought,attheleast,tobekeptwithinmoderatelimits;butitneverthelessoweditsorigintothefirmholdwhichtheprincipleofrenderingconstructiontheleadingsource of decoration had upon the architects. Being accustomed to decorateconstruction,theygotintothehabitofusingconstructiveformsasdecorations.

My illustrations have hitherto, perhaps, for themost part, been taken fromchurches, but the same principle of common sense applies equally to secularstructures. Each is treated in a manner suited to its class and purpose. Thoseclassesandpurposesdiffer, asamatterofcourse, inamajorityofcases, fromtheircorrelativesatthepresentday,astheydidindifferentperiodsoftheMiddleAgesthemselves,andinthedifferentcountriesofEurope,atanygivenperiod;so that themere fact of such differences existing is no argument against anylessonwemaylearnfromthem.Ipresume,forexample, thatnogreatanalogycanbeestablishedbetweenaRomanvillaandoneofthenineteenthcenturyinEngland, and notmuch between an ItalianRenaissance palace of the fifteenthcentury and a London mansion of the nineteenth. Even in Germany and inFranceat thepresentday thehousesdiffergreatly fromthose inEngland.Thequestion of the rationale of a style is rather whether it is so flexible and soessentiallyfoundedoncommonsenseandreasonthatitwillreadilyshapeitselftomeetpracticaldemands,howevervariedtheymaybe.

Now,itisscarcelypossibleforabuildingoftheMiddleAgesandoneforakindredpurposeat thepresentday todiffermorewidely in their requirementsthandiddifferentbuildingsofthesameage;andifthemostvarieddemandsofoneperiodareequallymetbyagivenstyle,whyshouldwefear that thesamestylewould fail tomeet variations proceeding from a change ofmanners andhabits?

Take, for example, aGothic fortification and aGothic town hall. Can anyrequirementsbemoretotallydifferent?Inonethegreatobjectwastoshutoffallcommunicationfromwithout:externalwindowsmustbeeitherwhollyavoidedor reduced to mere eyelet-holes. In the other the walls are perforated withwindowstothegreatestextentwhichthestrengthofthestructurewouldadmit.Inonetheentrancemustbeguardedbyallpossiblecontrivances;intheotheritmust,asitwere,openitsarmswidelytoinvitetheincomingcitizens.Intheonethe whole expression is one of stern exclusion and frowning defiance; in the

otherofbusyconcourseandfestivehilarity.Now,isitpossibleforthesewidelydiffering demands and contrary expressions to have been more perfectlyembodiedthantheyareinthefeudalcastle,andinthehallsofthemanufacturingcitiesofFlandersandGermany?

Take,again,thedomesticbuildingsofaconvent,andthoseofthecitizensofa great commercial town. Both, it is true, were human residences, and mustprovideforthecommonwantsofournature.Yetinonethegreatprincipleofthefoundation was ascetic gravity and religious mortification; in the other theobjects aimed at were hospitality, cheerfulness, and family enjoyment: and ineach case the objectswere perfectly provided for, aswell as expressed in theaspectofthebuilding.Why,then,shouldweimaginethatbecauseourideasoffamilycomfortaremoreperfectthaninthedaysofourforefathers,thestyleofarchitecturewhich theysosuccessfullyapplied topurposesdifferingsowidelyonefromanotherwillrefusetoaccommodateitselftoamorecompleteformofoneofthesamepurposes?YetpeoplecontinuallytellusthatGothicarchitectureisfeudalandmonkish!Ofcoursethecastlewasfeudalandtheconventmonkish:it would have been strange if they had not, seeing that one was built for thefeudallordandtheotherformonks.Butwasthetownhallorthecityresidencemonkish?Were thewarehouses ofNuremberg or themarket-halls of Flandersfeudal?Theideacarriesabsurdityonthefaceofit.Theywere,infact,builtbythose very communities who had used their utmost endeavours to overthrowfeudalism,andwereevermoststrenuouslyopposingitsauthorityandinfluence.

I have in this, and more especially in my last lecture shown you that thedevelopment of Gothic architecture itself was founded, step by step, uponcommon sense and upon practical considerations. In like manner were thesemadethegreatprincipleswhichguideditsapplication.

In all classes of building, whether ecclesiastical, military, monastic, civic,domestic,commercial,or rustic, though thearchitecturewas in realityoneandthe same, the treatment was absolutely and imperatively commanded by thepurpose, and the expression followed by instinct. As I have said on otheroccasions, a Mediæval barn is as good and as true in its architecture as acathedral;bothareessentially in thesamestyle,yetoneisasobviouslyabarnand as absolutely subservient to the requirements of a barn, as the other is achurch.Onehasnowindows,butslitsofsome4incheswide,andyetlooksasGothicastheother,whichhasmorewindowthanwall.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.153.—WarehousesatNuremburg.

Take,again, twocommercialbuildings—asthegreatClothMarketatYprèsand thehugewarehouses atNuremburg—one for exhibitingmanufactures, theother for stowing away goods. The first is, internally, a continuous room orgallerysome30or40feetwide,and(measuringalongitsseveralranges)about600or700feetlong;itsentiresidesoccupiedbycontinuousanduniformrangesoflargewindows,andtheexteriorunbrokentoexpresstheunityoftheinterior,andits

[Imageunavailable]Fig.152.—ClothMarketatYprès.

lower storey subdivided into rooms of a small size formore varied uses; andwithall thisunbrokenuniformity, itwouldbehardtofindamorewonderfullystrikingbuilding.Theother,beingforstowage,demandedmultitudinousstoreysandnumeroussupports.Thestoreyswithinarenot,perhaps,morethan8or10feethigh,andthefloorsarecarriedonoakenpillars.Thewindows,beingmoreforventilationthanlight,aresmallandsquare,andclosedbyshuttersinsteadofglass.Thecranehousesaremadenoblestructuresoftimber,butnoornamentisadmitted,exceptingtothedoorwaysandperhapsthegables.ThewholespeaksitspurposesounmistakablythatIdonotsupposeanyoneeveryetaskedwhatitwas; and thoughamereunmaskedandalmostunadornedwarehouse, it standsforthandasserts—andnot invain—itsclaimsuponpublicadmirationamongsttheadmiredmonumentsofthattrulyinterestingcity.

To go into the various classes of secular buildings, and to show theconsistencyoftheirtreatment,eachwithitsownproperrequirements,wouldfillavolume,andavolume,ifitdidanyjusticetothesubject,wellworthreading.Imust not now go farther. I will, however, point out a few developmentsdemanding our notice. I have before alluded to several points of differencebetween thewindowsofsecularandecclesiasticalbuildings.Thesedifferenceswere carried farther and farther according to the demands of the particularbuilding in hand. Thewindowswerewide or narrow,more or less numerous,subdivided or undivided, arched or square-headed, and, if arched, had high orlowarches,strictlyaccordingtothedemandsoftheroomswithin;andwhateverthosedemandswere,thearchitecturewassubordinatedtothem.Somebuildingshadwindowsfewandfarbetween;otherswerenearlyallwindow;andofcoursethere were all intermediate varieties. Some buildings were vaulted in everystorey, giving good examples of really fireproof construction; others werefireproofthroughoneortwostoreys,andtimberedabove;andothers,again,hadtimberfloors throughout.Insecularstructureswefindtrabeatedarchitectureinits truest form—not stone beams, which, when extended beyond very narrowlimits,goagainst thenatureof thematerial,butrealbeamsofwood,usedinathoroughlysensibleandconstructivemanner.Iwouldparticularlycallattentionto thefact thatbeamswerenotmerelyrun intowalls—where, themoment theends so immured decay, down comes the floor; but theywere aided by stonecorbels,andnotonlyso,butbytimbercorbels,lyingonthem;orifthebearingswereverygreat,braceswereadded,whichwillcarrythebeamsevenwhenthe

endsarerottedoff.Thisistrabeatedarchitectureinaverygenuineform.IdaresaybothGreeks

andRomansmayhaveuseditso,too;butastheirtimbershavegonetodust,theRenaissancehaslostitsprecedents,andhastoooftenimitatedstoneconstructionin wood, or in more modern works, in lath and plaster; for wood, havingdisappeared from among the precedents, has of late been to a great extenteschewedasavisiblearchitecturalmaterial.

Then, again, we have another common-sense development—the fireplace.TheRomanshadanumberofgoodmethodsofwarmingtheirbuildings;butthestraightforward,honestfireplace—thesocialpalladiumof theEnglishman—weowe,Ibelieve,totheMediævalbuilders—themenwhoaresaidtohaveknownnothing of modern comforts. There are fireplaces in old Norman castles—Conisborough,forinstance—asgoodasinaBelgravianhouse,andthechimney-pieces were often a great deal handsomer.With the fireplace came that othermodernfeature,thechimney-shaft.Lookhowconsistentlywithcommonsense,and with the principle of decorating what was demanded by utility, that wastreated!

The oriel window or baywindowwas anotherMediæval invention, and itwouldbedifficulttofindafeaturemoreconducivetocomfortandcheerfulness.Itisoftenverysensiblytranslatedintootherstyles;but,likethefireplaceandthechimney, it belongs to the style of those “comfortless” ages of whichwe aretreating.

Thedormerwindowisanotherinventionofthiswindowage.Thehighroofwas not to be thrown away—it must be utilised by being formed into atticstoreys;windows, therefore,must be contrivedwholly or in part in the roofs.Hence that highlypicturesque anduseful feature,which, though like theoriel,now translated intoother styles,was invented in themiddleages, and, likealltheirinventions,originatedincommonsense.

Ihavespokenoftheconstructionoffloors,butomittedtonoticetheceilings.Great scopewasgiven tovariety in their treatment.Sometimesall the timberswereshown,and,perhaps,decoratedwithcolour,thewood-workbeingmoreorlessornamented,asthecharacterofthebuildingdemanded.Forloftyroomsthisoften gives a noble covering; in other cases, the beams and binding joists areshown, and the intervening spaces panelled; in others, again, the whole ispanelled,andineachcaseanyamountofdecorativepaintingusedwhichmightbedesired.ThereisnodoubtthattheceilingsinGothicbuildingswere,inmanycases, the types which suggested those of the earlier Renaissance buildingsbeforepeoplebegantoimitatestoneconstructioninplaster,andtomakequasi-

constructivefeaturesinhollowcradling.Inthemiddleages,eitherconstructiveparts were exposed to view, or the decorations which concealed them weredesigned simply as decorations, without in any degree professing to beconstructive—plainhonestcommonsensebeingtherulingprinciple,asitoughttobe,andoncewasinotherstyles.

One of themost strikingways inwhich this principle of common sense isdisplayed is in the absolute freedom exercised in planning, or,more correctlyspeaking, the absolute subordination of external design to the practicalrequirementsof the interior.Therewasno loveof irregularity for itsownsakeamong theMediæval builders; on the contrary, theyhadnoobjection at all togeneral uniformity where the circumstances of the case did not suggest adeparture from it; andwhere irregularitywas demanded for use, they did notcarryitbeyondwhatthedemandrequired;butwhenthepracticalrequirementsnaturally led to irregularity, they fearlessly followed them,without anyof thatmorbid striving after forced uniformity which characterises—I will not sayClassicworks,fortheancientsalsoactedonmorenaturalprinciples—thegreatmajority of modern buildings. That they did not capriciously strive afterirregularityisprovedbysuchbuildingsasthegreatmarkethallsofBrugesandYprès, the latter ofwhich has a front of 450 feet long,without one deviationfromuniformity, simplybecause thepractical requirements in eachwingwereidentical.That,whentheinternalrequirementsbutslightlydiffered,theycarriedirregularitynofartherthanthedemandsofreasonsuggested,isprovedbysuchfrontsasthatoftheducalpalaceatVenice,andofaverygreatnumberofstreethousesandpalacesindifferentcountries,wherethenormalideaisuniform,butthewindowsplaced to suit roomsofvarying size;but that,when thepracticalrequirements had no reference to uniformity, they fearlessly acted on them,withoutanyofthosesicklyrepiningswhichwouldsosadlydisturbthepeaceofthe modern architect, still more without any torturing of the internalarrangements tomake themfit toapreconceivedelevation (which is theusualpractice in thesemoreenlighteneddays), isabundantlyprovedbymanyof thenoblestworkswhichourforefathershavebequeathedtous.

Now, far be it from me to say that this honesty of treatment belongsexclusively toGothicarchitecture. Itdoesnot. It is the leadingprincipleofalltruearchitecture;andIhavenodoubt,indeedwehaveindisputableproof,thatitwasactedonbytheGreeksandRomans,aswellasbyourownforefathers.ThecontrarypracticeseemstobeanerrorratherofourownagethanofthegenuineperiodsofClassicart;butwhenthedefendersoftherevivedClassicartuseitasanobjectionagainstMediævalarchitecture,wethenhaveafullrighttopointout

itstrueprinciples,andtoshowthatitisanexerciseofcommonsensesoobviousand reasonable, that any style of art which refused it would stand self-condemned,asrejectingtheplaindemandsofreason;and,thoughIdonotholdthat Classic architecture stands so condemned, it would be so if we were toadmitagainstittheaccusationsofsomeofitsownadvocates.Atanyrate,itisfair on thepart ofGothic architecture to say that in this great principleof thesubordinationofexternaldesigntointernalrequirement,itnotonlyfollowsthegreat styles of architecture which preceded it, but that, in the opinion of itsopponents,itcarriesoutthegreatutilitarianprincipleeventoanexcess.

Therecanbenodoubtthattheprincipleispre-eminentlyinharmonywiththegenius of Gothic architecture; more so, probably, than with any other; and ifthosewhothinkitavicedesiretosaddleitexclusivelyonourstyle,theycannotcomplain ifwe,whohold it tobeavirtue,at the least,claimfor thatstyle thelion’sshareofthecredit.

Idonotforamomentdisputethatthereisroomforexcess,eveninactingonaprinciplesoreasonable.Ifweweretomakeitanexcuseforcarelessplanning;ifweweresoaffectedastoseekexcusesforirregularitywhenthearrangement,if carefully considered, offered none; or if we neglect reasonable means ofavoiding themwhen it canbedonewithoutany injury to thearrangement,weareclearlyopen to thechargeofexcess;but,on theotherhand, ifwewere toavoid irregularity by making two essentially different parts look alike, at thesacrifice of their practical demands; if we place windows in inconvenient orunsightly positions in the interiors of our rooms, for the sake ofmaking themmatch some windows in an opposite wing, or to form a regular range,disagreeingwith internaldivisions; ifwemakeshamwindowswherenonearewanted, or omit real ones where they would be useful; or if we torture anddisplace our rooms to obtain uniformity; or play any of the thousand trickswhich are too current amongst us to make our exteriors uniform where ourinteriorsarethecontrary;surelyweareguiltyofafarmoreculpableexcessintheoppositedirection,fortheexaggerationofcommonsenseisunquestionablyamorevenialsinthanitsrenunciation.Howeverthismaybe,Gothicarchitecture,whether rightly or wrongly, looks to internal requirements as paramount toexternalregularity;placesitswindowsratherwithreferencetotheroomswithinthan to the elevations without; and rejoices inmaking the exterior express insomedegreethechangesofpurposeintheinternalarrangement:butitdoesnotrejectuniformitywherecompatiblewithtruthandutility,norrefusetoadmitofcarefulartisticcombinationsofparts,solongastheyaremadesubservientto,orat leastdonotmilitateagainst,practical requirements.AsIhavesaidbefore, I

believethatinthisitonlyreflects,andcarriesoutmoreperfectly,theprinciplesoftrueClassicart;andthat,iftheseprinciplesareoftenforgottenorrejected,itis in the main an abuse of modern date. It is, however beyond all questioninherentuponthatformofrevivedClassicartwithwhichwearesurrounded.

The samemay, in fact,be saidof truthfulness inminor things. Itwouldbeunjust to father the contemptible and endless fallacies of our own day uponClassicarchitecture.Itistruethattheypervadeandsaturatemanyofthemodernproductions of that style, and that the revival of Gothic architecture hassomehowledtotheirexposure;butthetruthfulnesswhichweareproudtoclaimasoneofitsgreatandleadingstars,wefreelyyieldastheproperty,notofonestyle,butofallnoblearchitecture.[62]

Did time permit, I might follow up the rationale of the style underconsideration as evinced in the judicious employment, treatment of, and themode of workmanship applied to, different materials as well as differentbranchesofartisticdecoration.TheMediævalarchitectadoptedthematerialhecouldmostreadilyobtain,andadaptedhisdesigntosuititspeculiarqualities.

Ifheusedblock-stonethroughouthiswork,oruniteditwithroughwalling-stoneorrubble,orifhisbuildingwereofbrick,orflint,orpebbles,hestudiedtousethemsoastolookwellandtoaidtheeffectbytheirvariety;asinstancesofthisIwillrefertotheexquisitestoneandflintstructuresintheeasterncounties,andtheinterstratificationofblockstonewiththethinnestrubbleinsomeoftheoolitic districts; to the domestic brick architecture of Norfolk, or NorthernGermany,andofLombardy,tothetimberstructuresofinnumerabledistrictsandcities;tothevariously-colouredstonesinthebuildingsinAuvergne;andlast,butnotleast,tothemagnificentmarblestructures,withtheirinlayingsandmosaics,whichdelightuswhen in Italy.Thegreatprinciplewashowbest toutilise thematerialswhichNaturehadprovided:whereNaturehadbeencharyinhergifts,evenexternalplasterwasnotdespised,buttruthfullymadeuseof;whereshehadbeenlavish,evenpreciousstoneswereusedasbuildingmaterials,asatPrague,where there is a chapelwhose interior is facedwith a kind of rubble-work ofpolished amethyst, the stones being cut through, but otherwise unshaped, theirregularjointingsbeingcoveredwithembossedgilding.

Inmetal-workeachmetalwastreatedonitsownmeritsanditsownnaturalcharacteristics.

In decoration—frescoes, mosaics, tapestry, needlework, embossed leather,metal-work, enamels, etc.,were profusely usedwhen funds permitted. Indeed,nothingwasrejected,eitheronthescoreofhomelinessorexpense,provideditsuitedtheworkinhandandthemeansatcommand.

Butwhat,Imaybeasked,istheutilityoftracingoutevidencesofafactsoprobableonthefaceofitasthatourforefathersacteduponreasonwhenengagedonsopracticalathingasarchitecture?Iwouldreplythatitsutilityistwofold.Inthefirstplace,wehavetoomuchlostsightoftherationaleofarchitecture,andofthenecessityofactinguponit.Idonotwishtoripopenoldsores,ortoobjectagainst other errors of which we are all of us guilty. Let us each examineourselves, and ask ourselves how far we act upon truth and reason in ourdesigns;andifcompelledtoadmitourderelictions,areviewlikethatonwhichwehavebeenengagedmaynotbeotherwisethanuseful—quiteapartfromanyquestionaboutwhatstyleweareworkingin.

Inthesecondplace,itisanundoubtedfact,thatweareatatransitionalperiodof our art, that we are dissatisfied with the present and aiming at an alteredfuture,andthatsomeofusarefollowingupthataimonthebasisofarevivalofthestyleofwhichIhavebeentreating,whilethereisavisinertiæinartwhichisnoteasilyovercome,butyieldsreluctantlytochange;howimportant,then,isitto us to know that the style we are reviving was itself based, as all goodarchitecturemustbe,on the firm rockof commonsense, andhowessential tooursuccessthatweshouldplaceourrevivalonthesamebasis!Shallwe,then,securethisobjectbydoingonlywhatourforefathersdid?Bynomeans;rather,asIhaveurgedinaformerlecture,letusdoastheydid:thatis,actuponreason.They thoroughly suited all their works to their varied objects. Let us do thesame,howmuchsoevermorevariedourrequirementsmaybe.Theymadetheirhouses comfortable to the extent of their habits; let us make ours so to thegreatlyincreasedextentofourownhabits.Theywelcomedeveryinventionasitarose:letusdothesamebytheinventionsofourownprolificage.Theyutilisedeverymaterialwhichpresented itself to them: letusdosobyall thematerialswhichmodernscienceoringenuityhasplacedatourcommand;onlyletusdoallthis truthfully and consistently with reason; for example, if we meet with aninvention suited to the surface decorationof roomsbut devoid of constructivestrength,letususeitasasurfacedecoration,andnot,asistoocommonlydone,maketroughsandpipesof it,andpassthemoffforbeamsandcolumns!Ifweadmire a vaulted construction, by all means let us use it, but do not let usemulatethevaultingofDiocletian’sBathsandWestminsterAbbeyorthedomesof the Pantheon or St. Sophia in lath and plaster! If wewant plaster casts ofancientmonuments, letusplacetheminourmuseums,but,forgoodnesssake,letourbuildingsthemselvesbereal!

Theconditionstobedemandedofourfuturearchitecture,whetherdestinedtobe based upon the Classic or the Gothic Renaissance, or whether they are to

continue ever, as now, to assert sideby side their rival claims, are:—aperfectand unhesitating fulfilment of practical demands, whether of construction,convenience, or comfort; an equally unhesitating adoption of the materials,inventions,andmechanicalandconstructiveappliancesof theage;acapabilityof reasonable economy or of judicious magnificence in all degrees andproportion; a character at once noble and in harmony with the country andclimate, andwith national associations; a perfect freedomof treatment, unitedwithperfecttruthfulness;andafreeadmissionofthesisterartsintheirhighestandmostperfectedforms.Howhappywoulditbeforartifwecouldproclaimanarmisticebetweenrivalstyles,whiletheadvocatesofeachdevoteheartandsoultotherealisationoftheseconditions,soobviouslydemandedbyreasonandcommonsense!

ThatGothicarchitectureisinitsspiritwellfittedtounitetheseconditions,Ithinkmaybe judgedbymuchthatIhaveshownyouin thisandtheprecedinglecture.Itlaysclaiminapre-eminentdegreetothecharacterofFreedom.Freeinits use of arcuated or trabeated construction, as may best suit each particularcase; free in the form of its arches, which, in addition to those used in otherstyles,takeotherandexcellentforms,whichenablethemtoassumeallpossibleproportionsofheighttospan;freeinitsvaulting,whichhaspeculiarfacilitiesforadaptingitselftoeverypossiblespaceandspan;freeintheproportions,aswellasinfiniteinthevarieties,ofitscolumns;freeasairinthesculptureitappliestotheircapitals,aswellastootherarchitecturaluses;freeinthepitchofitsroofs;in the size, number, form, and grouping of its windows; and, above all,absolutelyfreeinitsplanning,inwhichthepracticalrequirementsoftheinteriorhaveundisputedswayirrespectiveofexternaldesign—itseemsasifitcouldnotbe otherwise than suited to an age in which freedom is the great point to beaimed at in all we undertake. Convinced that such is the case, let us devoteourselves,heartandhand,tothetask;letusbringallourenergiestorenderingthe stylewe select as our groundwork really and absolutely subservient to thewantsandtothespirit(sofarasitisahealthfulandatruthfulspirit)ofourage;letus apply to theworkallour reasoningpowers, andgroundallwedouponcommon sense. But let me not be mistaken: this cannot be done by a mereabstracteffortofthemind:letme,therefore,urgeuponyouwhoarestudentstoexercise your reason and common sense in anotherway, and to be assured ofthis,thatyoucannotsucceedinthepracticeofart,unless,inadditiontoallthepracticalconsiderationsIhavehadoccasiontoalludeto,youmakeyourselves,inthestrictestsenseoftheword,ARTISTS.

ADigressionconcerningWindows.

IntheforegoingLectures,havingonlybroughtthehistoryofourArchitecturedown to the close of the thirteenth century, I have neglected that of the laterstyles, and, consequently in great measure, the development and progressivechangesinwindow-tracery.Thishas,however,beensoamplytreatedofinmanybooksandessaysthatitisnotamatterwithmeofmuchregret.IconfessIhadintendedtohavesuppliedtheomissioninsubsequentlectures,butcircumstancesprevented.

It would have been an agreeable task to have followed up the history ofwindow-tracery and the many details which accompanied it, through theremainingtwoandahalfcenturiesofthereignofGothicarchitecture—tohaveshown how it grew from the purely geometrical system of Westminster,Newstead, and the “Angel choir” at Lincoln into the sweeter tracery of the“Easteraisle”atSt.Albans,andofSt.Etheldreda’sChapelinHolborn;andonagainintotheyetsofterlovelinessoftheLadyChapelatChichester,thehallsatPenshurst,Mayfield, thegatehousesofBattleAbbey andofSt.Augustine’s atCanterbury,andtheChapelofSt.AnselmandDeEstria’sworkatthecathedralthere; and then again into themore flowing tracery ofAlan deWalsingham’swork,tillitfellintodebilitybyitstoosensuousramifications,andwasbroughtbackagaintovigourbythesternperpendicularworkofWykeham;andhowthat,initsturn,becamesofteneddown,intosuchworksasCrosbyandElthamHalls,andagainintotheexuberanceoftheTudorstyle.Allthiswouldbeverypleasant,butwouldnecessitate the treatingof all contemporaryvariationsofdetail, andwouldswellmylecturesoutintoanothervolume:morethanthis,Ihavegivennosuch lectures. It has been my task to show the principles on which Gothicarchitecturewas founded, and on which it attained its leading developments,ratherthantofollowthemouttotheirultimateresults,onattainingwhichmuchwhich led to them was thrown aside, as scaffolding is taken down when astructureiscompleted.

I feel it necessary, however, while neglecting the more usual course ofchronicling the history of window-tracery, to supplement my lectures at thispoint with some remarks on the general construction of windows—applicablemoreorlesstoallperiodsofMediævalarchitecture.

Themostnormalformofawindowinanarchedstyleissimplyanopeningstraight through thewallcoveredbyabarrelarch.This is,however,obviouslydefective in its fitness for diffusing light in the interior, a deficiency which,

thoughslightinthecaseofalargewindowinathinwall,becomesseriouswhenthewindowisnarrowandthewallthick.Thesimplestmethodofmeetingthisistosplaythejambsandarchofthewindow,at,forexample,anangleofforty-fivedegrees,soastoallowforthespreadingoftheraysoflightwithin.

InEnglisharchitectureofpre-Normandays, thiswasmost frequentlydone,bothwithinandwithout,byplacingtheglassalongwayfromtheouterface,orperhaps in themid-thicknessof thewall (Fig.154).Thishad theadvantageofsplayingtheheadorarchaswellasthejamb,whichallowedmorehighlighttoenter; an advantage often increased by splaying the exterior of the archmorethanthejambs,givingitabonnet-likeshape,andsoobtainingstillhigherlight(Fig. 155). Windows thus splayed inside and out, may be seen in the CastleChurchatDover—somefewofthesearenotarchedbuthadoaklintels,splayingupwardsataboutforty-fivedegrees(Fig.156).Thebonnet-headedwindowmaybeseenatHolyTrinityChurch,Colchester;ClaphamChurch,Bedfordshireandmanyotherbuildings.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.154.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.155.

Fig.156.Fig.157.

The deeply splayed window may also be seen in part of St. Pantaleon’sChurchatCologne(Fig.157),which isaworkof the tenthcentury,and in theaislesoftheBasse-œuvreatBeauvais,achurchofatleastasearlyadate,sothatit may be viewed as a feature common during these early periods ofRomanesque which preceded that from which our Mediæval styles weredeveloped. During the rise of theNorman style, a different systemwasmoreusuallyadopted,thesplayofthejambsandarchbeingmainlyinternal.AseriesofhumblevillagechurchesatthebackofDoverCliffshavewindowsinwhichtheglasswasflushwiththeexterior,andallthesplayputinside;manybothinNormandy and in this country differ from this only in having a very smallexternalsplay,andevenwhentheexteriorisshaftedtheinnersplayoftencomesclosetothefaceoftherecessedorder.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.158.—Chancel,BurghChurch,Norfolk.

Thisexcessiveflushness is lessfrequentas thestyleadvances,andinEarlyEnglish,thoughsometimes,asinthebeautifulchancelatBurghinNorfolk,(Fig.158)theglassissometimesbroughtextremelyclosetotheoutside:itisusualtohaveatleastafewinchesofsplayaroundit.

In transitional work, as in Norman, the internal splay, often of very greatwidth, usually runs round the arch concentrically; but in developed EarlyEnglish,

[Imageunavailable]Fig.159. Fig.160. Fig.161.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.162. Figs.163,164.

andinsubsequentstyles,aspecialvarietyofinternalarchisintroducedsuitedtothosenumerouscasesinwhichtheglass-planeisfarnearer(asitisinamajorityofinstances)totheouterthantheinnerfaceofthewalls.Thesimplestformofthisinternalwindow-archtakestheformofabarrel(pointed)arch,springingsomuch lower than the spring of the outside arch as to allow it to span theincreased internalwidthwithout risingundulyhigher than theoutside arch, aswas thecasewhen the splaywascontinued round the inner arch.Thisarchofnecessityformedanintersectionwiththeinsidesplays.Itsedgewasusually inthe plainest specimens, relieved by a chamfer (Fig. 159), which was oftenexchangedforamoulding(Fig.160);butafarmoreagreeablefinishwasaribdroppingdownalittlefromthearchedsoffite,itsedgesbeingeitherchamferedormouldedwithorwithoutalabeloverit(Fig.161).This,ifthearchweremadeslightly segmental,would die into the jamb-splay, or itmight be carried on acorbel(Fig.162)orashaft(Figs.163,164),thusformingaveryagreeableandpicturesqueinternalfinishtothewindow.

Thisribisusuallytermedarere-arch.Professor Willis, in his paper on the Architectural Nomenclature of the

MiddleAges,callsita“ScoinsonArch,”fromaFrenchword“escoinsons.”Healsoquotes the term“arrièrevoussure,”probablymeaning thearchbehind therib.

ProfessorWillis’s general description, which I had not referred to when Iwrote the above, is as follows:—“An arch is placed so as to carry the innersurfaceof thewall. In simple examples, like thepresent, this rib is plain, anddiesagainstthejambs,butinsuperiorbuildingsisrichlymoulded,andashaft,withbaseandcapital and side-mouldings, areadded to theedgesof the jamb.Butthisarrangementismostlydistinctfromthewindow-tracery.Thisarchisofdifferentandlargerspanfromthatofthewindow-head,becausethespreadingorembrasureof the jambs increases theopening inwards. It is alsoof adifferentcurvature,andthedecorationofthetwodisconnectedandseparatedbytheplainsplayedsidesofthewindow-opening,connectingthetwo,andrestingatoneendonthetracery,andattheotherontherib,isanarrowvaultorvoussure,whichagainisnotnecessarilyofthesamecurvatureasthesustainingarches,butwhichcarriesthecoreofthewallabove.”

Hesaysfartheron:—“Wemaythereforecallthesaidvault,rib,andshaft;the

rere-vault,rere-rib,andrere-shaftofthewindow.”Healsoremarksthat,“in thethick walls of Mediæval structure, the tracery and its glazing are commonlyplacedmuchnearertotheoutersurfaceofthewallthantotheinner.”Thislastobservation calls our attention to a great and important distinction by whichnearly allMediævalwindowsmay be classified—viz., thosewhich have theirglass-plane at or near the mid-thickness of the wall, and those which, as theProfessorsays,haveit“muchnearertotheoutersurfacethantotheinner.”

Thisdistinctionwas,asIhaveshown,ofearlydate;beinginitsearlieragesrather distinctive of “Saxon” from Norman windows. The class, however, inwhichtheglasswasnearertheouterthantheinnersidehad,uptoabouttheyear1200,itsinnerarchconcentricwithitsouterone;buttheinventionoftherere-archanditsaccompanimentsobviated this,andestablishedahardandobviousdistinctionbetweenthesetwogreatclassesofwindows.

Thecustomofsometimesplacing theglassat themid-thicknessof thewallwasinnodegreegivenup,but,onthecontrary,wascontinuedthroughallstyles;but, when adopted, the older system of making the inner concentric with theouter arch was nearly always continued, marking more distinctly the greatdifferencebetweenthetwoclassesofwindow.Thechoicebetweenthembecameamerematter of taste andof outlay; all styles acknowledgingboth as equallyadmissibleandcorrect.

The two systemsmay be distinguished as rere-arch windows and through-archwindows—i.e.,thoseinwhichtheinnerisdistinctfromtheouterarch,andthoseinwhichthesamearchrunsthroughthewall,showingitselfmoreorlesssimilarlyonitsouterandinnerfaces.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.165.—BroughtonChurch,

Oxfordshire.Fig.166.—Christchurch,Hants.North

Transept.

In thick walls and rich work there is often another order of through-archwithin the tracery order, or rather the outer order re-appearswithin. The rere-arch is occasionally cusped, as in a window at Broughton, Oxfordshire (Fig.165), and the intervening space is sometimes groined, as in somewindows atSalisbury and Christchurch (Fig. 166), or richly panelled, as in some atWestminster.Insomeinstancestheplaceoftherere-archisoccupiedbydistincttracery,likeasecondwindowinadvanceoftherealone.Thisconsistsinmostinstances of perfect bar tracery,while thewindow itself is of plate tracery; asmaybeseeninsomeofthewindowsatStoneChurch,Kent(Fig.167),andasonceexistedonamuchlargerscaleinthechapter-houseatTintern.Imayheremention that the traceryof awindow is alwaysviewedas anarch-order;and,thoughthecorrespondingorderinthejambisinthesolidwiththejambuptothespringing, the tracery, like other arch-orders, is severed by a continuous jointfromtheorderaboveit.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.167.—StoneChurch,Kent.

Themostnormaltypeofthethrough-archwindowisthatinwhichtheglassis placed in the middle of the thickness of the wall, and the interior of thewindowisamererepetitionofitsexterior.Thisisnot,however,byanymeansnecessaryorconstant;fortheglassisofteneitherlessormorerecessed,andtheinnermouldings, etc., are not always similar to the external ones, so that theexistence or non-existence of a separate internal arch is the more cleardistinction. Some, however, of an intermediate character, are to be found inwhichaninnerarch,separateindesign,isneverthelessconcentricwiththeouterarch.Inotherstheseparateexistenceoftheinnerarcharisesfromtheexistenceof a triforiumpassage,which in clerestorywindows leads to somechangesofdesignfromthenormaltype.Inotherstherere-archisnotonlyconcentric,butisso closeupon theouter arch as to be almost onewith it.The two classes are,however,forthemostparteasilydistinguished.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.168.—Chancel,BreconPriory.

OneoftheearliestinstanceswhichIrecollectoftherere-archisintheeasternpartofTynemouthPriory.[63]This is in the transitional style,and thestrongly-markedseparationof the innerfromtheouterarchis largelyowingto thevastthickness of the walls. The glass plane is perhaps four times as far from theinsideasfromtheoutside.

A fine series of specimens is in the chancel of Brecon Priory (Fig. 168),wheretheseparationbetweentheouterandinnerarch,andthedepthoftheglassfromtheinnerfacearealsoverygreat.MostoftheearlyEnglishwindowsfoundinchurchesofanordinarytypeareofthisclass.AmongEarlyEnglishbuildingsinwhichthewindowsaremostlyof the“rere-arch”variety,maybementionedSalisbury Cathedral, Whitby Abbey, the Temple Church (eastern part), theChapeloftheNineAltarsatDurham,[64]Trumpington’sworkatSt.Alban’s,thechoirofBreconPriory,theeasternChapelsatWinchester(Fig.169),thechapter-houseatOxford, thechoirofFountainsAbbey, etc.Among thoseof the samestyle in which the “through-arch” window prevails, may be mentioned thetranseptsatYork,thechoiraislesatCarlisle,RievaulxAbbey,thechapter-houseatFurnessAbbey(Fig.170),muchoftheworkatLincoln,KirkhamAbbey,etc.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.169.—WinchesterCathedral.DeLucy’swork.

AmongbuildingstransitionalbetweenEarlyEnglishandDecorated,orveryearly Decorated, may be named as having mainly rere-arch windows,Westminster Abbey (excepting the chapter-house), Tintern Abbey, the easternparts

[Imageunavailable]Fig.172.—ChapelofSt.Etheldreda,ElyPlace,Holborn.Eastwindow.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.171.—ChapelofSt.Etheldreda,ElyPlace,Holborn.Westwindow.

of St. Alban’s Abbey, the beautiful Templars’ Church at Temple Balsal, theChapelofthePalaceoftheBishopsofElyinHolborn(Figs.171,172),thechoirofDorchesterAbbey,theBishops’HallatWells,thechoirofMertonChapelatOxford,etc.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.170.—FurnessAbbey,onebayofChapter-House.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.173.—TheChapter-House,SalisburyCathedral.

Among those of a like period in which the through-archwindow prevails,maybenamedthechapter-housesatWestminsterandSalisbury(Fig.173), thelaterpartsofLincoln,thechoiraislesatSelbyandGuisborough,thechoirofSt.Mary’sAbbeyatYork,mostoftheDecoratedworkatYorkMinster,Exeter,etc.InlaterDecoratedworkthesamefreedomofchoiceprevails,asitdoesalsoin“Perpendicular” buildings, though, as we come down to later dates, the“through-arch”becomes,onthewhole,moreprevalent.

Takingallstylestogether,therere-arch,orinearlierworksthewiderinternalsplay,isgreatlymorefrequent,probablybecauselesscostlythantheotherform;andthough,whenthe“through-arch”isused,theglassisusuallysetdeeperfromtheexternalfacethanwhenthereisarere-arch,andisfrequentlynearthecentreof thewall, such is oftennot the case, as in the easternwindows atKirkham,wheretheinternaldepthismuchthegreater,and,inafewinstances,whereitisless, than the external.On thewhole, itmaybe said that the rere-arch systemtellsmostinternally,whiletheotheroffersgreaterfreedomforexternaldepthofjambandarchmouldings.Bothareequallyat thechoiceandcommandof thearchitect,whocanuseboth,ifhepleases,inthesamebuilding,andtocondemneitherwouldbelikeblottingoutanessentialelementofarchitecture.

LECTUREVIII.

OnthePracticalStudyofGothicArchitecture.EvidentignoranceorneglectofthosewhopractiseGothicarchitecture—Faithfulnessofothers—Thestylesshouldbelearnedfromancientbuildings—Ourknowledgetobecontinuallyrevivedandaddedto—Hintstostudents—ThestudyofLincolnCathedral,CanterburyCathedral,andexamplesinLondon—LibrariesandmuseumsinLondon—Foreigntravel—ExamplesinParis,andotherpartsofFrance—Germany,Italy,Spain,etc.etc.

ASit issixyearssinceI lastdelivereda lecturein thisplace,andnineyearssince the first of the short series which I gave, it is in the highest degreeimprobablethatanyoneofthestudentswhomIhavethepleasureofaddressingwaspresentonanyof thoseoccasions.Had that seriesbeenacompleteone, Imightpossiblyhavedonebetterby, insomedegree, repeating it;butas itwasnotso,andas there isan inconsistency inofferingsupplementary lectures toanewaudience,Ihaveadoptedtheexpedientofprintingmyformerlectures,anddistributing them to the architectural students, and of re-exhibiting theillustrations which accompanied them; so that, knowing that those who havethought it worth whilemay have readwhat I have already said, I am free toproceedasifmyaudiencewereunchanged.

IwillherementionthatIonlycomebeforeyouatallowingtomyfriendMr.Smirke(whoforfiveyearshassoablyandindefatigablyfulfilledthedutiesofProfessorofArchitecture),havingfeltitnecessary,forthisyearatleast,toretirefromthoseduties,andtomyhavingbeenaskedtodosomething—beiteversolittle—topreventtheclassofarchitecturefromfallingintoabeyancefortheyear.I have, therefore, undertaken two lectures, as a mere apology during theinterregnum for themore onerous duties of a professor, and Imust beg to beexcused if themanner inwhich I perform this temporary duty is of the samedubiouskindwiththedutyitself.

In my former lectures I endeavoured, first, to state the claims of Gothicarchitecture upon our special study and attention; I next, in a series of fourlectures, tracedoutwith someminuteness the history of its development fromthe earlier and ruder forms ofRomanesque—through the various processes ofrefinement which brought that style to its highest state of perfection—and,through the great process of transition by which it became gradually andsystematically changed into the Pointed style: not, as I showed, from a mere

change of taste or fashion, but from strictly logical and practical causes,accompaniedbyanardentunrestingdeterminationtoraisethearttothehighestperfectionwhichthecircumstancesoftheagewouldpermit;andIthenshowedhow the Pointed style—when once generated—developed itself into theperfectedandgloriousarchitectureofthemiddleofthethirteenthcentury.

IdidnotfollowoutthehistoryofGothicarchitectureinitssucceedingstages,asmy objectwas rathermoral thanmerely historical, and I desired rather toexhibit the glorious earnestness of a people, who, while developing a newcivilisation, pressed ardently forward, side by sidewith it, the generation of anew style of architecture, than to give a history of the successive changesthrough which that architecture passed.When, therefore, I had traced out thestyletoitsculminatingpoint,Iquittedmerehistory,andclosedwithtwolecturesontherationaleofthestyle,showinghoweveryformwhichcharacteriseditinitsbestdayswasdictated,notbyfashionorcaprice,butbyreason.

Beingnow,afteralengthenedinterval,calledupontoaddtwolecturestomyseries, I takeformysubjects thepracticalstudyofGothicarchitecture,and itsactualpracticeandadaptationtotherequirementsofourownday.

Commencing,then,withthestudyofthestyle,nothingseemsatfirstsightsoobvious as how to gain knowledge of such a subject; indeed, you may feelpuzzledtothinkwhatthereistosayonsosimpleamatter.“Surely,”youmightsay, “if a person wants to obtain a knowledge of a subject so thoroughlyinvestigated, so popular, and brought so prominently before the public as formanyyearspasthasbeenthecasewithGothicarchitecture,thereisnodifficultyin theworld about it, nor is itworthwhile towaste an hour in listening to alectureonsopatentaquestion.”Howisit,then,wemayaskinreturn,thatsuchamultitudeofarchitectserectGothicbuildings,oneglanceatwhichissufficienttoshowthattheyareignorantofthestyleinwhichtheyarepretendingtowork?—thatweseeateveryturnattemptsatadvanceddevelopmentofthestylewhichbetrayanutterinnocenceofallacquaintancewithitsABC?—andthatworstofall,wefindthepreciousremnantsofMediævalartrestored—Oh,shameonthemisnomer!—by men who have never given thought enough to the subject toenablethemtoappreciate,eveninthefaintestdegree,thevalueofthetreasurescommittedinsuchfalseconfidencetotheirkeeping,ortoformthemostdistantidea of their own ignorance? Surely, this is enough to prove that the study ofGothicarchitecture isnotunderstood,or isgrievouslyneglectedby thosewhoassumeaknowledgeofandpresumetopractiseit.

And the converse is equally true: that the success,more or less perfect, ofmany others proves that the true road is known, and by a certain number is

faithfully followed.Myobject inwhat I have to say ismore, perhaps, tourgeuponeachofyou tobeof thatnumber than tomakeanybutwhatwillappearmosttriteandself-evidentsuggestionsastowhatthetrueroadisinwhichIaskyoutowalk.

In the first place, it is self-evident that Gothic architecture is only to belearnedfromtheoldexamples.Inotice,absurdasitmayseem,thatmanyyoungarchitectsappear to think that itmaybe learnedfrombooksandby lookingatmodernbuildings,andreallypaylittleattentiontotheoriginalsourcesofallourinformation.True,itisthepartofeverystudenttomakeuseofalltheresourceswithinhisreach,anditwouldbeabsurdtoundervaluetheaidofbooks;itisalsowisetolookattheworksofsuchmodernarchitectsasareworthyofconfidence;butthereisnosourcefromwhichthestylecanbereallylearnedbuttheancientexamples,andtotheseitisimpossibletodevotetoogreatanamountofstudy.

Iwouldnextobservethatthisstudyofoldexamplesmustbecontinuous.Itisnotacourseofstudytobefollowedupforacertaintimeandthenbroughttoaclose,butmustbecontinuedindefinitelythroughoutyourwholecourse,soastobe ever reviving and ever adding to your knowledge. In the study of Classicarchitecture, though it is from the original examples that knowledge andinspirationaredrawn,theseexamplesaresofarremovedfromus,inthiscountryatleast,thatitisasaruleonlypossibletostudyfromthemonceortwiceduringawholelife.Thecaseis,happily,verydifferentwiththeexamplesofMediævalart:wearesurroundedbythemwhereverwego;—theyaretheearlymonumentsofourowncountry,theworksofourforefathers,andourstudyofthemisnotthework of one strong effort at a single period of our lives, but a constantlyrenewingstudy,afountaintowhichwemayreturnagainandagainwheneverwefeel to need its refreshing influences. This, though an inestimable advantage,mayproveatemptationtonegligence,asweareapttoletgoopportunitieswhichare ever at hand, so thatwemust not trust to these desultory sippings for ourmainsupply,butmustdrinkdeepandlongwhenwehavetheopportunity;andmoreespeciallyIwouldurgeuponyoutodosonow—inthedaysofyouryouth,whileyetunencumberedbythecaresofbusiness,whileyourfeelingsarefreshandyourthoughtsunshackled.This is the timefor layingin thegreatstoresofknowledge which must be the main supply of your future lives, andwithoutwhichthescantandhastydraughtsobtainedonchanceopportunitieswillbeofno avail, but after which theywill be themeans of constantly refreshing andaddingevernewlifetotheknowledgealreadypossessed.Wemaysayofthisasofotherbranchesofstudy,

“Alittlelearningisadangerousthing.Drinkdeep,ortastenotthePierianspring.”

Theconditionsunderwhichthestudyhastobepursuedseeminsomedegreetoprecludeitsbeingfollowedinastrictlysystematicmanner.Weareobligedtostudy buildings, of whatever date, as they may come in our way; and everybuilding we visit is likely to be of many periods and to have undergonealterationsmoreor less radical;so thatwearealmost forbidden tosystematiseourstudiesonanyprinciple,chronologicalorotherwise.Wemust,infact,takeourexamplesprettymuchaswehappentofindthem;andthebestmethodwhenwesetoutonasketchingtouris,probably,todevoteourattentiontoaparticulardistrict,andtofollowitup,townbytownandvillagebyvillage,asconvenienceor previous information may suggest, visiting and thoroughly studying allobjectsworthyofitwhichcomeinourway.

Nothing can be more delightful than these excursions. If you knowbeforehandwhatyouarelikelytomeetwith,theveryanticipationofwhateachday will bring before you will add zest to your appetite for architecturalenjoyment;while if youdonot knowwhat objects of interestmay lie in yourcourse,theveryspeculationwillgiverelishtothesearch.

Here,perhaps,youcometothesiteofsomefamousmonastery,lesshappyinitsdaysofruinanddesertionthansomewhichhavebecomethefavouritehauntsof theartist. Ithas,perhaps,been forages thestone-quarryof thedistrict, andnowonlysomeonegable-endwithitsloftylancetsshowsthenoblescaleoftheancientchurch.Here,itmaybe,nothingstandsabovegroundbutthebasesofthepillars; fartheron thewall rises to theheightof thewindow-jambs,andshowsthearcadingof thewalls;andthere theaislewallretains thedoorwaysleadingthrough into the cloister—nowa farm-yard—on the eastern sideofwhichyoufindthethreebeautifularches,thecentraloneofwhichformedtheapproachtothechapter-house,androundthiscloisteryoustilltracetheplanoftherefectoryandothermonasticbuildings.But,scantyandnowhumbleasaretheruins,youfindthedetailstobeofthehighestorderofartisticrefinement.Thebasesofthelost columns are profiled with the most studied delicacy, the few remainingdoorwaysareperfectmodelsofrichthoughunostentatiousdetail,thearchways,perhaps, of the chapter-house entrances are of the most elegant and studiedbeauty. On tracing out and measuring the plan, you find its arrangement andproportions tobeof themostperfectkind; and, though so little comparativelystands in situ, the ground is strewn here and there with masses from thesuperstructure, from which you may trace out the design of much which has

fallen down, while the fences and agricultural buildings around are perfectstorehousesofmouldings,capitals,andfragmentsoftraceryorofgroining,fromwhichyoucanstudythedetailalmostasprofitablyasfromaperfectbuilding.

In thenext villageyou find, perhaps, a churchof thehumblest dimensionsandofthemostunambitiousarchitecture,yetyoutraceinitssimpledetailstheproofsofitshavingbeenerectedbythemonksoftheneighbouringconvent,andyou feel that, plain and unpretending as they are, they were designed by asmasterlyahandastheabbeychurchitself,anddeservetobeascarefullystudiedandasminutelysketchedandmeasured.Again,fartheron,youfindachurchofnoble scale, inwhichyou trace theworkofmanyperiods.The internalpillarsand arcades show a period just emerging from the Romanesque, though itsrudenesshasbeenquitecastaside,anditsmouldingsare,onthecontrary,ofthegreatest refinement.The chancel, perhaps, is ofmore advancedEarlyPointed,theaisles,theclerestory,andthetoweroflaterperiods;andthescreensandthefewremainingoldseatsarespecimensoftheoak-workofthefifteenthcentury.Here and there in corners you find encaustic tiles, in some of which yourecognisepatternsyouhadobservedinthesiteoftheruinedabbey.Intheupperparts of the window-lights and scattered among the plain glazing you findfragments of glasswhichwould do honour to any age, and such as our glasspainterswoulddowelltostudy,insteadofturningthemoutwithscorntomakeway for a memorial to some recently departed squire.[65] The sedilia in thechancel, and the piscinæ both there and in the aisles, are any of them aloneobjectsworthyofthemostcarefulstudy,andeverydoorwayandeverywindowpossessesmoreorlessclaimuponyourattention.

Inanotherplaceyoufindless,perhaps,tointerestyouinthechurch,forithaspassed through the hands of some architect famed in the county for hissuccessfuldestructiveness,butyoufindotherobjectsofinterest.Thereisanoldmanor-housewhich,thoughmostlyofJacobeandate,retainstracesofearlyandscarce periods of domestic architecture.Nor are its later portions unworthy ofyour study: its brick chimneys have a beauty about them which modernarchitectshavestriveninvaintoemulate;thehalf-timbergablefrontsaremodelsof timber construction; within there are remnants of oak panelled ceilings, ofwalllinings,ofdoorsperhapswithmouldedoakdoor-cases,ofsimplebutwell-designedchimney-piers,andallsortsoflittleoddsandends,allworthyofbeingcarefully and minutely noted, whatever may be their age; for our old housearchitecture isoftenmostvaluablysuggestive,evendown tovery lateperiods.Thecottagesaround,too,seemtodohomagetothemoredignifiedresidence,byshowing here a good timbered gable-end, there a well proportioned brick

chimney; indeed, I would advise the architectural tourist never to despise thecottage architecture of our villages, but to note as they pass every fragmentwhich has escaped the hand of time, for they aremost useful and instructive,and,youmaydependuponit,theywillnotmuchlongerexist.[66]

Inanothervillageyouwill,perhaps,findthatthechurchhasbeentheburial-placeofsomefamousfamilyofoldentimes.Underlowarchesintheaisles,andnowalmosthiddenbythehighpewing,youfindthecross-leggedeffigiesoftheearlier members of the house, perhaps of oak, and hollowed out beneath, toprevent theirwarpingoutofshape;andifyouexaminetheseeffigies,youwillfind them far from being the rude specimens of sculpture which our moderncriticsmaysuppose.Youfindintheirattitudeadignityandsternnobilitywhichoursculptorswouldfinditnotsoveryeasytoemulate,whilethechainarmour,with its rigid lines, and the linen surcoat, with itsmore delicate foldings, areexecutedwithatruthfulnessandfeelingwhichshowthat themanwhoworkedthempossessedboththesoulandthehandofanartist.Theseareworthyofbeingcarefully drawn, though to do thiswell demands much time. I have heard ofStoddart giving a week to one such figure! There are, perhaps, in the samechurch,oneortwofemaleeffigieswhosedraperyandposeremindyouofthatofQueen Eleanor atWestminster, and one or two brasses well worthy of beingcopied,ratherthanrubbedoff;fortheobjectofthesetoursisnotonlytoobtainpossessionof representationsof theobjectsofartwhichyoumeetwith,but topractiseandtutoryourhandandeyebypracticallystudyingfromthem.

Then,again,asyoupass through thecounty,you findotherobjectsequallyworthyofnote;as,forinstance,theoldbridgeswhichhereandtherethecountymagistrateshavepermittedtoremain,andwhichtravellersbutrarelyseebecausetheypassover them.Thevillageorchurchyardcross,thelych-gate,sometimeseventhedovecote—allhaveclaimsuponyourattention;andwhereachurchisgenerallyhumble,andperhapsdenudedbythemutilationsofolderignoranceorofmodernconceit, theremayyet remainadoorway,apillar,awindowor twoworthyof attention. Inoneplace itwill be the towerwhichmost excitesyourinterest; in another the timber roofs; in a third you may luxuriate in carvedscreen-work, in chancel stalls, and richnave seating; and in a fourth thegreatattractionmaybethepaintedglass.Inonetouryoumaytakeahomelyseriesofchurches like those of Essex, which, under an unpretending exterior oftencontain someof themostusefulandvaluablework;orgoingon farther in theeasterncounties,youmayvisit the finechurchesofSuffolkandNorfolk,withtheirnoble timber roofs, theirbeautiful seating, and inmanycases their richlyandartisticallycolouredandembossedscreens;or,takinganotherdirection,you

mayfollowthenoblecourseofchurchesofNorthamptonshireandLincolnshire,with their charming towers and spires. Indeed, in whatever direction you go,somenewanddifferingcharacteristicswillrewardyourlabour;andineveryoneI would urge upon you to sketch everything which strikes you as worthy ofnotice,whetherinthechurch,thecastle,orthecottage,notomittingthehumblebrickchimney-shaft,orthebrickorstoneortimbergable,oreventhestampedplasteroftheeasterncounties.

Inallthiscourseofstudyyouwillbemuchfacilitatedbytheremembranceofyour practical officework.Youwill remember puzzling questionswhich haveoccurredtoyouwhilemakingworkingdetails,andwatchtofindthemsolvedinoriginalwork.Howisthegableofanaisleconnectedwiththeeaves?andhowwiththeparapet?Howaretimberoverhangingeavesbrought incontactwithastonegable?andhowisthesamedonewithstoneeaves,orwheretheeavesarewood, and the roof timbers show through the gable?[67] All sorts of littlequestions such as these will have occurred to you in practice, and rested asdoubtfulpointsonyourminds,butmaybesolvedinmanynaturalandpleasantwayswhile travellingamongoldexamples—except, indeed,where themodern“restorer,”innocentasababeofallsuchdoubts,haslevelledeverythingtohisown office tariff. In such tours, be most careful accurately to sketch all thescarcerclassesofexamplesyoumeetwith, suchas remnantsof thirteenthandfourteenth century roofs and other wood-work, fragments of painted glass,specimens of iron-work, early screens and stalls, choice specimens of carvedfoliageor figuresculpture, tracesofwalldecorations, illuminationsof screens,etc., and colouring on roofs. The unsparing hand of the so-called restorer hasdevastatedandisstilleagerlydevastatingwholedistricts,andclearing themofthese invaluable records of ancient art; and this alone, independently of theirhigh intrinsic value, renders it doubly important that the few remaining relicsshould be carefully represented. And be it ever remembered that suchrepresentations,tobereallyvaluable,shouldnotbemerehastymemoranda,but,ifpossible,carefulmeasureddrawings.

Ihavehithertosupposedyoursketchingexpeditiontobeoneofapurelyruralkind,andtheexamplesfromwhichyoustudytobemainlyonthescalewhichwe find in villages. I will now transfer the imaginary tourist to the oppositeextreme, and suppose him to be devoting himself to one of our greatestcathedrals,as,forexample,Lincoln.Herethecaseisgreatlychanged,forhewillgetnogreatgoodunlessheseatshimselfdown,determinedlyandlong,andgoesthroughalengthenedcourseofcarefulandminutestudy,notnecessarilyoftheentirecathedral,butatleastofthepartsselectedforspecialattention.Itisbestat

once, on your arrival, to take lodgings near at hand, and to enter into somearrangement with the verger for your admission at all reasonable hours,obtaining,ifneedful,acarteblanchefromtheauthoritiestogowhereyoulike,andatpropertimestodowhatyoulike.

Shouldyousetyourselvesthetaskoftracingoutandstudying,stepbystep,thecourseofarchitecturalchangefromtheNormanConquesttothecloseoftheMediæval periods, there are few places more suited than Lincoln for thepurpose:indeed,Ionlyrememberasinglelinkuptothemiddleofthefourteenthcenturywhichismissingfromthechain,andthatnotwhollyso.

Inthetowersoftwochurchesinthelowercityyouhavespecimensofwhatmaybe fairlycalledSaxon, thoughof thedate of theConqueror; forwhenhedroveouttheoldinhabitantsfromtheuppercity,tomakewayforhiscathedraland castle, they erected for themselves churches in their own old architecturebelowthehill,whilehispeoplewereatworkin“thenewmannerofbuilding”above.Ofthat“newmanner”youwillfindspecimenslookinganythingbutnew(excepting for the endeavours of the present chapter to impart that look tothem[68]) in the west front; and if their surface shakes your faith in theirauthenticity,youwillfindwithinsomeparts,onceexternal,butforsixcenturiesenclosedinanearlyEnglishappendage,whichyouwillnotdoubttobetheworkofoldRemigius.

In thecentraldoorwayyouhaveNormanof laterdate,and in thesideonestrulyexquisitespecimensofthelatestandmostrefinedperiodofRomanesque,justbeforeitstransitionintothePointedstyle;andyouwillfindthesameworkextendingupwardthroughthelowerstagesofthetowers.

Hereoccurs,sofarasIrecollect,theonlyhiâtus.Idonotrememberanyofthatearlyvarietyof theEarlyPointedofwhichthespecialcharacteristic is thesquareabacus,andonwhichIhavedweltsomuchatlengthinformerlectures,suchasthatwhichprevailsinBylandAbbey,andisseeninsuchhighperfectionin the entrance to the chapter-houseofSt.Mary’sAbbey atYork.[69]The twolateNormandoorwaysIhavejustmentionedtreadcloseuponit,andtheworkwhich I shall nextmention follows so closely after it as to differ only in theshapeoftheabacus,buttheexactstyleisabsent,itsplacebeingsuppliedbyanalmostuniquevarietyofEarlyPointed,which Iwouldadviseyouspecially tostudy.IrefertotheworkofBishopHugh,whichformsthestapleoftheeasterntransept with its appendages, the choir, and half of the east side of the greattransept.At first sight thiswork looks like the fully-developed Early Pointed,and its date, which closes in 1200, seems an anachronism; but on closerinspectionitwillbefoundthatthisantedatequalityislimitedtotheabaciofthe

shafts,which are nearly all circular. In every other particular the details agreewith their date, and belong clearly to the early variety of the style. Themouldingsareof thatpeculiarlybeautifulandstudiedprofilewhichwefindatnootherperiod,andareworthyofyourmostcarefulstudy;indeed,Iknowofnoworkwhichwillbetterrepaythelaboriousandaccuratelymeasureddrawingofitsdetails.

IhadintendedtohavegonecarefullyintoadescriptionofthevariedbeautiesofLincoln.Irecollect,however,thatinoneofmyearlylecturesIdweltlongonthis cathedral, and I must not repeat myself; but having spent lately nearly aweek in the careful study of its details, I wish, from personal and recentexperience,tourgeitsclaimsuponyou.AsIsaidinthelecturereferredto,youwillfindinthenaveoneofthefinestexampleswehaveofthefullydevelopedandtypicalEarlyEnglish,andin itseasternpartsperhaps theveryfinestof itslatestform.TheEasterSepulchreisafinespecimenofEarlydecoratedofaboutthe period of the Eleanor Crosses, and the sleeping soldiers beneath it arecharmingpiecesofsculpture;thechoirscreenisanexcellentspecimenoflaterDecorated,andthestall-workoffineearlyPerpendicularwork.

In studying thesevarious authorities, each among thehighest of its class, Iwouldsuggestthatthey,particularlytheproductionsofthethreegreatperiods

[Imageunavailable]Fig.174.—EasterSepulchre,LincolnCathedral.

of Early Pointed architecture, should be followed out systematically andrelatively;comparingthempartbypart,bymeansofdrawingsnotonlycarefullymeasured,butplotteddownaccuratelyonthespot.Thus,Iwouldcomparebaywithbayofeachperiodbothwithinandwithout,andthenfollowupthismoregeneralcomparisonbycomparingthedetails,as,forexample,pillarwithpillar,basewithbase,capitalwithcapital,string-coursewithstring-course,andsoonthrough the arch-moulds, the triforium, the windows, the vaulting, the wallarcading, and other features. By such a comparison you would obtain a veryaccurate knowledge of the whole course of thirteenth century architecture, asexemplifiedbyoneof the finest seriesofworks that thisor anyothercountrycanboast.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.175.—Capitals,northsideofChoirLincolnCathedral.

Youmust not, however, rest here: youmust draw artistically and carefullyfromthemoredecorativeportionsoftheseveralworks.Thereisaperfectstudyofcarvedfoliageineachofthedivisionsofthework.Therearenobleportals,[70]oneofwhich,inparticular, isitselfworthyofaspecialvisittoLincoln,andofthedevotiontoitofaconsiderableamountoftime.Thereisalsoagreatamountofveryfinefiguresculpture,notonlyinthetriforiumofthe“angelchoir,”butintheportaljustmentioned,andonafewofthebuttressesaroundit.Thesemerityour most careful drawing, as they are some of the finest examples in thiscountry.There is also a good deal of beautiful figure carving of a rather laterdateinthewoodenbossesinthecloister,andsomeofastilllaterageinthestallwork of the choir. I have already mentioned the sleeping soldiers under theEasterSepulchre.

Therearealsoafewremainsofearlywallpainting.Thelargestamountistobe found inachapelat the south-westernangleof thenave,whereawall, theresult of an alteration almost contemporarywith theEarlyEnglish chapel, hasbeenrichlydecoratedwithbandsoffoliage,etc.Thesearenowoddlyintermixedwith some decorations of the seventeenth century, but are readilydistinguishable, andareaveryuseful series.Tracesofdecorationmayalsobefoundinthevaultingofthechurchitselfandelsewhere.Thestainedglassinthecircularwindowofthenorthtranseptisveryfine,andmeritsclosestudy,asalsodo the remains of that which once filled windows of the eastern part of thechurch, as well as remnants in other parts. All these, and a hundred otherfeatures,shouldbemostcarefullyandstudiouslydrawnfrom;indeed,therearefew cities in Europe from which so vast an amount of information andinstruction can be drawn—lessons not limited to the cathedral, but extendingthroughout the town, and consisting of domestic as well as ecclesiasticalbuildings.

I have only takenLincoln as a specimen.The same course applies cæterisparibus, to all of our cathedrals. Look, for instance, atCanterbury.[71]What amagnificent and instructive series of objects of study does it offer! The EarlyNormanofLanfrancandhis immediatesuccessors; thegorgeous laterNormanofConrad, including,probably, thebeautifullyornamented shafts in thenorth-easternpartoftheoldercrypt,andinthecloister-likebuildinglyingtothenorthof thesame; theworkofWilliamofSens(withoutstudyingwhichnoonecanthoroughlyunderstandtheEnglishtransition),andthatofhisEnglishsuccessor

andpupil,whichcarriesonthechangealittlefarther.ThecharmingdevelopedEarlyEnglishinthewallsofthecloister;theearlyDecoratedofPeckham’stombandthelaterDecoratedofthelowerstageofthechapter-house,oftheenclosureofthechoirandofSt.Anselm’sChapel;followedupastheyarebyfineworksof later styles and accompanied by collateralwork of the greatest value, botharoundthecathedralitself,intheremainsofSt.Augustine’sAbbey,andinotherbuildingsin thecity;formof themselves thegroundworkforacourseofstudywhichwould, if earnestly pursued, give the student a complete foundation onwhichallhisfutureknowledgemightwellbebased.

A comparison of William the Englishman’s work with that in the CastleChapelandCastleChurchatDoverwouldbe interesting,asprobablyshowingtheworks of the same hand; and a comparison of these, on another occasion,with the more thoroughly English work of the same period at St. Cross, andotherbuildingsinwhichtheEnglishandFrenchtransitionseemtoworkhandinhand,asGlastonburyandtheratherlaterworkatChichester,followedup,again,by a study of theNorthern transitional examples, would give a pretty perfectknowledge of this most instructive, perhaps, of all periods of Englisharchitecture.

Iwillnot,however,wearyyouwithbarrenbillsoffareandoutlinetours,butwillcontentmyselfwithsayingthatthesamecourseofcloseall-gatheringstudymust be followed up wherever you go, whether making a tour of villagechurchesorof thegreat northern abbeys, or seatingyourselvesdownbefore amajesticcathedral.

Architectureproperlysocalled,wood-work,metal-work,decorations,stainedglass,andeveryformofartandworkmanship,mustbestudiedasifyouhadtoperformlikeworkforyourselves;andyoumustmakeyourselvesperfectmastersof it in everyway; and,moreover, youmust study theobject andmeaning ofeverythingsoasineverywayperfectlytounderstanditsmotive,whetherritual,constructive,iconographic,artistic,orsimplyutilitarian.

Iwillmakeoneothersuggestionas toyourEnglishstudies.Youcannotbealwaysmakingtours,butyouneedtobealwaysstudying.Donot,then,neglectthoseobjectswhichsurroundyouwhileathome.Youhaveatyourdoors,ifyoulive inLondon, abundant objects to occupy such incidental hours as youmayhaveatyourcommand.

Tobeginwith,youhaveWestminsterAbbey,thestudyofwhichmaysupplyyour leisure moments for life. What an inexhaustible fund of material of allkinds we have here! Of the earlier periods we have objects which—if notartisticallyimportant—possessatleastadeepantiquarianinterest;forweretain

extensiveremnantsofthatworkofEdwardtheConfessorwhichacontemporarywriter tells us was the very first erected in England in the “new manner ofbuilding;”meaning theNormanRomanesqueasdistinguished from theSaxon,which latter, curiously enough, had been viewed by thosewho practised it asbeing Roman. Then, we have the Late Norman of St. Catherine’s or theInfirmaryChapel.Thesearebutincidentalobjectsofinterest,buthowdifferentisthecasewiththeabbeychurchitself!

We have there the foremost work of its period in this country—a workdistinctly intended to surpass all others, and in which the most advanceddevelopments of its periodwere introduced.True, the exterior has been pareddownandrenewedinthelastcenturytilllittleisleftbutitsmassandproportionswhichinvitesyourstudy;butwhataninterior!Iknowofnonemorebeautiful.Itsuniformitymayatfirstsightmakeitseemunprolificinvarietyofdetail;butIwouldonlysay,tryit,bycommencingasystematicseriesofsketches,carefullymeasuring every part, making accurate sections of themouldings and studieddrawingsfromthefoliageandtheremainsofthefiguresculpture;andyouwillsoonfindthatitisamineofthemostvaluableexamplesofeverykindofdetail.Itsworkmanship, too, isofaverysuperiorkind,andsuggests lessons to thosewhocarefullyexamineintoitoftheutmostimportance.Thechapter-houseisasvaluableanexampleasthechurchanditsvestibule,andtheearlyportionsofthecloistersofferstudiesoftheutmostvaluealwaysopentothestudent.

Thecomparisonbetween theworksofHenryIII.andofEdwardI. formaninteresting study, as showing the one step onward in the second stage of thework.

Oftheageofthissecondwork,youhaveseveralgorgeousspecimensinthemonumentsofQueenEleanor,ofCrouchback,andofhisCountessAveline.Thetwo latter are invaluable studies of coloured decoration in itsmost sumptuousform,andIspeciallycommendthemtoyourattention.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.176.—WestminsterAbbey. Fig.177.—WestminsterAbbey.

Offoliatedcarvingyouhaveadmirablespecimens,bothofthemostrefinedformoftheconventionalkind,andoftheearliestforminwhichnaturalfoliagewas made use of (Figs. 176, 177). You have, in the tombs of Eleanor,Crouchback, and Aveline, and in the bosses of Edward I.’s work, the samecarriedon intoamoresystematicform;andImayheremention thatgenerallythe bosses in the vaulting areworthy ofmost careful study. Then, again, youhave noble examples of figure sculpture in the earlier monuments, especiallythose of Henry III., Queen Eleanor, Crouchback, Aveline, and Aymer deValence.Alsosomeadmirablerelicsofitinconnectionwiththearchitecture;as,forexample, in theanglesof the triforiumof the transepts (Figs.178,179), inthebossesofthewesternaisleofthenorthtransept,andoverthedoorwayofthechapter-house.Oflaterfigure-sculpturethereisanendlesscatalogue,windingupnoblywithTorrigiano’sworksinHenryVII.’sChapel.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.178.—AngelTriforiumoftheSouthTransept,WestminsterAbbey.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.179.—AngelTriforiumoftheSouthTransept,WestminsterAbbey.

Of enamel-work you have splendid relics in the monument ofWilliam deValence and in the shields on Edward III.’s. Of mosaic-work, whether ofporphyryorenamel,youwillfindabundantexamples,asyousowellknow:ofthefinerformsofpaintingyouwill findmostexquisiterelics in thewonderfulretabulumofthealtar[72](nowpreservedintheambulatoryofthechoir)andinthechapter-house;ofiron-workyouhaveasplendidexampleoverthetombofQueenEleanor;andofbronze-work(thoughlateindate)intheexquisitegatesofHenryVII.’s Chapel and in his tomb,with its surrounding screen, also in theaccompanimentsofthebronzeeffigiesalreadyalludedto;whileoflaterstylesofarchitectureyouhaveassplendidaseriesas thiscountrycanproduce, rangingfrom the very earliest perpendicular in the cloisters, dating notmuch after themiddleofthefourteenthcentury,tothegorgeouschapelofHenryVII.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.180.—MosaicfromtheTomboftheChildrenofHenryIII.andEdwardI.,WestminsterAbbey.

Withsuchastorehouseofartatyourdoors,youneedneverwantwork.Youhave,however, inLondonmanyminorworksofgreatvalue.Toplace theminchronological order: you have the chapel of the Tower, a work dating backalmost to the Conquest;[73] St. Bartholomew’s Priory Church in Smithfield, abeautifulspecimenofthelaterNorman;[74]theTempleChurch,consistingofoneofthefinest

[Imageunavailable]Fig.181.—TempleChurch,London.Capitals,WestDoor.

examples of the transitional[75] united with one of the finest of the fully-developedEarlyPointedstyle;theremainswhichthemodernVandalshaveleftusofSt.Saviour’sChurch,anobleEarlyPointedwork;thechapelofLambethPalace, in the same style; Ely Place Chapel, a work contemporary with theEleanorCrosses;[76]thecryptofSt.Stephen’s,Westminster;thehallofLambethPalace;WestminsterHall,andmanyaninterestingobjectofminorimportance.Youhave,ifyouwantaday’soraweek’strip,St.Alban’sAbbey,anever-failingandinexhaustibletreasury;WalthamAbbey,withwhatremainsunspoiledoftheCross; Stone Church, Hampton Court, Eltham Palace, Croydon Palace,BeddingtonHall,EastburyHouse,theruinsofNetherHall,theRyeHouse,andmanyoldchurchesnowbroughtwithinanhour’srideofLondon;nottomentiontherapidlyfailingrelicsoftheoldchurchesofMiddlesex,nowthemeresportofdestructive and ignorant committees, and—with shame I say it—sometimesofequally destructive but more culpable, because only wilfully ignorant,clergymen.

ButLondonsuppliesotherfacilitiesforthestudyofMediævalartinadditionto itsancientbuildings. In thefirstplace, Imaymention its libraries, inwhichthestudentmaydevotehissparehours instudyingeveryworkwhichhaseverbeen published bearing upon the subject. The library of the British Museum(includingtheprint-roomandthemanuscript-room)containseverythingofthatkindwhichthestudentcoulddesire,andIstronglyrecommendyoutogaintheprivilegeofadmittanceandtomakefulluseofthatprivilege.Yourownlibrary,too,attheRoyalAcademy,andthoseoftheInstituteofBritishArchitectsandofthe Department of Art at South Kensington, offer every facility for study. Iwouldespeciallymentionthatlastnamedasbeingopenintheevenings,andasbeing one of the most complete libraries of works on art in existence. TheArchitectural Museum[77] and the South Kensington Museum are absolutelyinvaluable as aids to the student; so that you have ample employment for thedeadseasonof theyear inwhichsketchingtoursare impossible,andit isyourownfaultifyoudonotmakefullandampleuseoftheprivilegesyoupossess;for,believeme, theyaresuchas informer timesitwas impossible toobtain.Ineedhardlymention theBritishMuseum,which, thoughnot rich inMediævalworks,istherepositoryofthosewondrousstoresofGreekandotherartwhichtheMediæval artist knows aswell how to value as thosewho devote to themtheirmoreexclusivestudy.

Youwillperhapswonder that Ihavesaidnothingasyetof foreign travel. Ihave delayed this intentionally, and for this reason: the facilities for travellingabroadarenowsoabundant,andsogreatastresshasoflateyearsbeenlaidonthestudyofforeignexamples, that there isgreatdangerof thestudentrushingheadlongintoforeigntravelbeforehehasmadehimselfacquainted,inanybutthemostsuperficialmanner,withthearchitectureofhisowncountry.

Youmaypossiblybedisposed,afterreadingmyformerlectures,tosaythat,asmostofthedevelopmentsofourartseemtohaveoriginatedabroad,itwouldbemoresystematictostudytheminthefirstinstancewheretheyoriginated,andthen to trace their ramifications in other countries. Iwould reply that, thoughwhenwriting on a subject one is obliged to be systematic, it is by nomeansnecessary that we should be rigorously so in our studies. Effects have in allsciences tobeexaminedintobefore theircausesarediscovered,andit isoftenbetterthateachstudentshouldforhimselfgothroughtheprocessoftracingbackfamiliardevelopmentsofartthroughthelongcourseofcircumstanceswhichledtothem,rather than,beginningat theoriginalgerm(whichhemust learnfromothers), toproceed—ina coursenothisown—till he arrives at the resultwithwhichheisfamiliarfromitsbeingathisowndoor.

Howeverthismaybe,IholdittobemostunnaturalfortheEnglishstudentofGothic architecture to plunge into the study of its productions in other landsbefore he has made himself perfectly acquainted with those of his own. Ourlanguage ismainlyderived fromGermanandFrench,butwhowouldwishhischildren to be taught those languages before they could speak correctly theirmothertongue?WeloveGothicarchitectureinthefirstinstance,notbecauseofthe buildings we have heard of or seen pictures of as existing in foreigncountries, but from thosewhichwe see aroundus—ourownvillage churches,our own cathedrals, and a hundred objects which we have known from ourchildhood.Fromthesewelearnthenativelanguageoftheart,anditbehovesustopursuethestudyofthatlanguage,andtoperfectourselvesinit,beforeweturnourattentiontoforeigndialects,eventhoughtheymaybeofolderdatethanourown.

When,however,youarewellgroundedinourownarchitecture,nothingcanbemoredelightfulormoreinstructivethantofollowupyourstudiesinforeigncountries; thoughhere, again,youmust everkeepawatchoveryourselves—aguardtoyourpatriotism—lestyoushouldbetemptedtoforgetortoundervalueyourmothertongue.[78]

The first country to visit is unquestionably France. A question may occurwhetheritisbesttobeginwiththeoldroyaldomain—thegreatcentralprovince

of the Pointed style, the fountain-head of our art—or with Normandy as theconnecting link between ourselves and that fountain-head. On this question Iwouldnotofferanyverystrongopinion,thoughIinclinetowardstheformer.Idonotthinkthat,aftertheRomanesqueperiod,thedevelopmentsoftheFrenchcame to us in any very great, or at least any very exclusive, degree throughNormandy; and we know that very shortly afterwards that link ofcommunicationwas cut off byour lossof that province, and that immediatelyafterthisthearchitectureofNormandybecamemoredistinctlyFrench,andthatofEnglandmoreexclusivelyEnglish.Ithink,therefore,thatyouwouldbebetterpreparedtounderstandthearchitectureofNormandybyhavingfirststudiedthatofthecentralprovinceofFrance.

This,however,isasecondaryquestion.Thegreatmatteris,whereveryougo,thoroughly tostudy, thoroughly tosketch;not tohastenover theground togetthrough an extensive programme, but to seat yourselves downwhere you findgoodmaterial,andworkonpatientlyatit.Whereyoubeginiscomparativelyoflittle matter, excepting that it is undesirable to take the abnormal before thenormal—themeredialectbeforethelanguage.

IfyoubeginatParis,asthegreatcentre,youwillfind,amidsttheNapoleonicmodernismsofthatcentreoffashion,averyperfectseriesoftypicalMediævalremains, over-restored andotherwiseoften sadlydamaged, but neverthelessoftheutmostvalue. I havementionedmostof them inmy former lectures,but Iwilljustenumeratethemtorefreshyourmemory,androughlyinchronologicalorder.

IknowlittleofpurelyRomanesquedateunless itbe theeasternpartof theabbeychurchofSt.Martin.Thisiscuriousandworthyofattention.Theearliestobject,however,ofparamountimportanceistheolderpartofthechurchofSt.Denis.Ihavesaidagooddealaboutitbefore,andwillnowcontentmyselfwithpressingitsimportanceasthegrandtypicalexampleoftransition.TheByzantinefoliageheredisplaysitselfinamostmarkedform.Youwillfinditinthestring-courses and other parts of the west end very finely developed.[79] The greatportalofthenorthtranseptisanoblespecimenofthisearlystyle.Thefoliatedcarvingonitisofveryhighmerit.Theeasternchapels,bothofthechurchandcrypt,arewellworthyofthecloseststudy,andtherearemanyfineremainsbothstowedawayinthechurchyardandpreservedinatemporarymuseumcloseby.These, however, do not all belong to this church, some having been broughthere,underwhatcircumstancesIdonotknow,fromSt.GermaindesPrès.Iwilljustmention that youmust get permission to sketch (so long as theworks ofrestorationaregoingon)fromM.ViolletleDuc,and,havingobtained,prayuse

ittotheutmost.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.182.—Capitals,Montmartre.

Next indate, so far as I know, comesSt.GermaindesPrès.Hereyouwillfind,especially in thechoirand itsaisles,amostnobleseriesofstudiesof theByzantinesque foliage. The architecture, too, is very excellent; but you willperceivethatthepresentformofthetriforiumisalteredfromtheoriginal.

Perhaps about the same age is the church of Montmartre. Here theByzantinesque foliage is nearly all of the plain unraffled form, and is verycuriousandworthyofstudy.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.183.—St.JulienlePauvre,Paris.PlanofChoir.

InthesameclassmaybeplacedthelittlechurchofSt.JulienlePauvre,nowthechapeloftheHôtelDieu.Thechoiranditsaislesformaperfectworkonaverysmallscaleinthetransitionalstyle,withByzantinesquefoliage.Thechurchisbutlittleknown,butiswellworthyofattention.ItshowshowmistakenistheideathattheEarlyFrenchstyleisnotsuitedtosmallbuildings.Theclearwidthof the side bays is actually under four feet, and the other dimensions inproportion, yet the whole not only has not aminiature, but has a decidedlydignifiedair,while itsdetailsofferconsiderablevarieties,even the twoapsidalchapels being wholly different in their design and plan.What remains of thenave and the fragments of the fine western portal are good specimens of thesucceedingstyle.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.184.—St.JulienlePauvre,Paris.Choir.

WenowcometothechurchofNôtreDame,whichoffersanalmostperfectseriesofobjectsofstudyfromthesameperiodonintothefourteenthcentury.IntheeasternpartsistransitionalworkwithByzantinefoliage,showingsomeverycuriousvarieties.Oneofthewesternportals,too,containstwoexquisitecorbelsbelongingtoitspredecessorofthetransitionalperiod(Figs.187,188).Thenavewith its truly glorious portals is amost noble illustration of two immediatelysucceedingperiods;as fine, indeed, in itsdetailsasanythingcanbe.The iron-workofoneofthewestdoorsisunequalled.Theupperportionsofthefaçadegooffintolateryetstillnoblework.Thetransepts,nowsadlyover-restored,belongtothelatterhalfofthethirteenthcentury,andhavebeenfinethoughsomewhatattenuatedworks.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.185.—St.JulienlePauvre,Paris.SouthAisleofChoir.

Theporterougeisamodelofasmallandelegantdoorway,whiletheeasternchapels,whichneverthelesspossessgreatelegance,showhowthemassiveandmasculineEarlyFrenchstylehadbecomethinneddownbeforethecloseofthefirstquarterofthefourteenthcentury.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.186.—St.JulienlePauvre,Paris.Chapel,southsideofChoir.

The refectory of the abbey of St. Martin aux Champs is a most nobleapartment of the first half of the thirteenth century, and some of the foliatedcarvingisamongthefinestofitsperiod(Figs.189,190,191)whilethe

[Imageunavailable]Figs.187,188.—Corbels,WesternPortals,NôtreDame,Paris.

SainteChapelle,saidtobetheworkofthesamearchitect,carriesonthestylealittlefarther,andis toowellknowntoneedanyremarkfromme.[80]Oflaterarchitecture there are alsomany specimens, thoughmy tastes and leisurehavenotallowedmetogomuchintothem.Therearealsoseveralminorworksoftheearlystyles,ofmostofwhichIdonotremember thenames.TheHôtelCluny,itselfacharmingspecimenofthedomesticarchitectureofthefifteenthcentury,contains,besides its invaluablecollectionofmovables,amost interestingmassoffragmentsofarchitecturaldetailwellworthyofseveraldays’carefuldevotion.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.189.—Capital,St.MartinauxChamps.

[Imageunavailable]Figs.190,191.—Capitals,St.MartinauxChamps.

Quitting Paris, no city in France has, perhaps, stronger claims on yourattentionthanChartres.Iwillnotgointoanydescriptionofwhatyouwillfindthere, further than to say that it contains some of the very finest and richestexamplesbothofthetransitionalandofthefully-developedEarlyPointedstyles.Youmightseatyourselvesdownthereforamonthandworkhardeveryday,andbe glad to go again and again and do the same, and yet find ample scope forstudy. In all these works the figure sculpture claims equal attention with thearchitecture, and no place offers a nobler field for this study thanChartres.Ashort run farther brings you toLeMans,where the same two styles are againgloriouslydisplayed,theoneinthenaveandtheotherinthechoir,etc.;butthistakesusoutoftheregionsoftheoldroyaldomainandtrenchesontheAngevinedistrict.

BetweenParisandAmiens,andbothneartoandwideoftheroadtotherightand left,youwill findanadmirableseriesofvillagechurchesworthyofbeingmade theobjectofanentire tour,whileamong themaremanymoregorgeousmonuments,astheabbeychurchofSt.Lucd’Esserentwithitsexquisiteseriesofcapitals, and the cathedral andother churchesofSenlis.Amiens andBeauvaisneednorecommendationfromme,norneedIcallyourattentiontothatgloriousgroup consisting ofNoyen, Soissons, Laon, andRheims,with theChâteau deCoucy, themonasteryofOurscamp,etc.Thisgroupshouldbe thesubjectofadistinct tour, though too extensive to be thoroughly studied in one of shortduration.

IshouldhavementionedthatatCreil,whichyoupassingoingtoalmostanyoftheseplaces,aretheruinsoftheexquisitetransitionalchurchofSt.Evremont,another instance of the way in which the early French builders fitted theirarchitecture toworksof small size. Iknowfewmorevaluableexamplesof itsperiodthanthis.

In another direction you reach Sens—a church so closely allied with theEnglish transition—and Auxerre—a mine of fine detail, and farther on thevenerableabbeyofVezelay,andseveralotherslessinscalebutofgreatinterest;but here againwe get out of our province: only letme beg you, if you go toVezelay,togiveplentyoftimetothechapter-house,atrulyexquisiteworkofthetransitionalperiod.

EachdistrictofFrance,however,has itsownspecialobjects,all interesting

and instructive, and all claimingyour careful study, though the central districtbears most directly upon ourselves, excepting only Normandy, with itsRomanesqueidenticalwithourown,anditshostofcharmingvillagechurches,whichremindonesomuchofthoseofEngland.Whereveryougo,beparticulartogiveattentiontotherarerobjects,suchastimberroofsofearlydate,chancelstalls, wall decorations, with those relating to groining, etc., to metal-work,jewellery,shrines,illuminatedmanuscripts,andmoreespeciallytostainedglass;and,perhaps,almostmorethanall,tofiguresculpture.Iwouldalsosuggestthatyoushouldgenerallygivepreferencetoobjectswhicharereallybeautifulratherthan to thosewhichareoddandextravagant. Iconfess Ihavenotmyself seenmuchofthelatterclassinFrance;butsomeofmyfriendswhohaveakeenereyehave, if one may judge of causes by effects, come home loaded witheccentricitiessuchasIhavefailedtomeetwith.

Germany is almost asdelightful to the architectural tourist asFrance itself,andismuchmoresoinonerespect.Imeanthegeneralretentionofthemovablesofchurches,eventothejewellery.

Thearchitecture inGermanywhich is,perhaps, themostvaluable is thatofthetransition,which,asIhavebeforepointedout, tookherea lineof itsown.Afterthis,themostvaluableis,perhaps,thebrickarchitectureoftheNorth.Thetimberbuildings,however,arealmostequallyimportant,wereitnotthatit isamaterialnotmuchinuseforexternalarchitectureinourownday.

Themovables,however,aretherichestinheritanceoftheGermanchurches,andtotheseIwouldrecommendyourdevotedattention.Theyformaspecialandmost important subject of study, and one for which no country offers suchfacilities.Besidesthemoreordinaryobjects,suchaschancelfittings,reredoses,bronzegates,metalandotherscreens,lamps,coronæ,fonts(whetherofstoneorofbrass), tabernacles for the reservationof thehost, ancientorgans,paintings,and a hundred others of parallel classes, almost every great church has itsSchatzzimmer, or treasury, and these usually contain valuables of the highestinterestandofthemostsplendidart.Thesearenotalwayseasyofaccess,anditisdifficulttoobtainpermissiontosketchinthem;butitiswortheveryexertionto do so. The treasuries at Aix-la-Chapelle and Cologne are known to everytraveller,andtheirclaimsuponthestudentareapttobepassedoverfromveryfamiliarity; but a few days devoted to each would be invaluable. I know noancientworkmoregloriousormoreexquisite,sofarasitremainsintact,thantheshrine of the Three Kings at Cologne. I have on two occasions obtainedpermissionforabriefperiodtodrawfromit,andhavebeenfilledwithwonderat the exquisite art which a close examination unfolds. At Hildesheim are

numberless objects of early art of the same class. At Brunswick, again, are afew;whilethetreasuryofthecathedralatHalberstadtisacompletemuseumofMediæval art. Sacred vessels, reliquaries containing the finest earlyworkmanship, books with glorious jewelled covers, mitres of all degrees ofrichness,tapestriesfromtheearliestperiods,altarcoveringsbothofembroideryandlinenofearlyperiods,andexquisiteworksofeveryclasswecanimaginearetobefoundinthatcharmedenclosure.[81]AtMarburgtherearealsomanysuchobjects,andamongthemtheshieldsoftheoldTeutonicknightsandtheperfectlywonderfulshrineofSt.Elizabeth.Idonotrefertothebeautifulstonestructurewhichcontainedit,andwhichisfiguredbyMoller,buttothegorgeousjewelledshrinewhichitcontained.AllthroughGermany,however,thecaseisthesame:whereveryougoyoufindthegreatchurchesrepletewiththemovableworksofMediævalart.Itisforyoutostudythemwiththecarewhichtheydeserve.

I have in a previous lecture said a good deal about the study of Italianarchitecture,andIwillnotnowrepeatit.SufficeittosaythatItalyisthelandinwhich to study the use of richmaterials, ofmosaic-work, and of architecturaldecorationinitshighestforms.Itisthelandinwhichtogivethefinishingtouchtoyourarchitecturaltraining,tolearnthelastandloftiestlessons—thosewhichshowushowtolinkarchitecturewiththesisterartsintheirhighestperfection.Ifyouareartistswhenyougothere,youmaybemuchmoreadvancedartistswhenyou return. We learn, too, there much that is most useful in respect of thedomesticarchitectureoftowns.Itis,however,aseductivecountry,andwehavetokeeponourguardthere,andnottoforgetthatwearemembersofaNorthernnation.

Mr. Street has told us a great deal that is deeply interesting about Spanisharchitecture,soIwillnot(asIhaveneverseenit)enteruponthatsubject;andwillclosewhatIhavetosayonforeigntravelbyurgingyoutothediligentuseof it, but urging you also when you return home, not to forget that you areEnglishmen,andthatEnglish isyourproperlanguage.IwouldalsoadvisethatyourforeigntoursshouldbefolloweduporalternatedwithEnglishones,sothatyourownnativearchitecturemayalwaysbekeptprominentlybeforeyourmind.

Ihaveofferedtoyouinthislecturewhatmayappeartoyoubutthedrybonesofthesubject.InmynextIhopetofollowitupbysuggestions,bothastothespirit in which this course of study should be undertaken, and the personaltraining both of themind, the eye, and the hand necessary to fit you for suchstudies;andastothepracticaluseswhichyoushouldsubsequentlymakeofthelessonsyouwillhavethuslearned.

LECTUREIX.

OntheStudyandPracticeofGothicArchitecture.Everydaybusinessandpracticalworktogoonhandinhandwiththestudyofancientbuildings—Howbestto be accomplished—The study from books—Artistic and archæological portions cannot be whollydisconnected—Heraldry—A knowledge of the history of art absolutely necessary for the study ofMediæval architecture—Greek art the parent of Gothic sculpture—Ruined cities of Central Syria—Mahometanstyles—OurownformofchurchthedirectinheritancefromtheearliestChristiantemples—Training as artists—Choice among specimens of different Mediæval periods and styles—Examplesespecially recommended—Practical studiesofancientbuildings inconnectionwith theirstructural andmechanical qualities—Vaulting—Timber-work—Stone-work, etc., etc.—The actual practice ofMediævalarchitecture—Therepairsandrestorationofancientbuildings.

INmy last lecture I gave you an outline of the course of study requisite toobtainingaknowledgeofMediævalarchitecture,sofarasthisistobedonebythestudyingandsketchingfromancientbuildings.Ipurpose,inthis,tocarryonthesamesubjectintootherparticulars,andalsotooffersomesuggestionsastotheactualpracticeoftherevivedstyle.

Imighthaveappeared, inwhat Ihave said, almost topresuppose—what isimprobable,ifnotimpossible—thatthosewhomIhavebeenadvisingastotheirstudieshavetheentirecommandoftheirtime,andarecomparativelyfreefromthedemandsofevery-daybusiness.Inotonlydonotsuppose,butshouldbeasfar as possible fromdesiring, this; for I am convinced that thosewhose usualoccupations are not such as to familiarise them with the demands and thedifficulties of practical work, and with the questions which are ever beingsuggested by actuallyworking out the details of architecture for practical use,arenotprepared toprofit in thefullestdegreefromthestudyofoldexamples.Thisstudy,andthepracticalworktowhichitistheonlykey,mustgoonhandinhand.Therearenumberlessintricaciesandniceties;problemslongsincesolved;difficulties ingeniously met; clever ways of making accidents, which in theirown nature would cause a blemish, the means of adding beauty; numberlessinstancesinwhichdecorativeorothertreatmentwastheresultofsomepracticalreasonwhichwould at first sight appear to bemerely amatter of taste; and athousandotherinstructiveandimportantmatterswhichwouldbeentirelypassedoverorfailofapprovingthemselvestotheunderstandingofthestudentwhoisnot prepared to appreciate them by the suggestion to themselves of the sameproblems,thesamedifficulties,thesamelittleknotstobeuntied,thesamelittleintricacies to be unravelled, and the same calls for clever contrivance tomeet

accidentalcircumstancesarisingintheirowndailypracticalwork.The man, on the other hand, who is always at practical work, without

studying much from old examples, becomes dull and normal, or flighty andcrotchety,accordingtothebentofhisownmind;while,ifheconstantlysuppliesand revivifieshispracticalworkby study fromoriginal examples, and fits hismind to receive these lessons by his practical work, he is prevented frombecoming dull and lifeless by the constant suggestions of brightness and lifewhich he receives, or from becoming crotchety and over fanciful by thereasonablenesswhichhefindstopervadetheobjectswhichhestudies,andtheevidentaimwhichtheyevincerathertochastenandconceal—tosubjecttothedoctrineof reserve—theirclevercontrivances than to flaunt themobviously topublicgaze.

Tocarryoutthismutualco-operationofpracticalworkandthestudyofoldexamples,Iwouldrecommendyoualwaystonotedownanypuzzleyoufallintoinyourwork,andanydoubtastohowaperplexityistobemetordifficultytobegotover,andanyuncertaintywhichmayoccurtoyouastothebestmodeoftreatingaparticularfeature;so that,whenyounextgooutsketching,youmayhavealistofquestionsforwhichyouhavetoseekforpracticalanswersfromtheold architects themselves, still speaking to us and instructing us through theirworks;andinthesamewayyoumayhave,everandanon,answerssuggestedbytheoldmentoquestionswhichyouhavenotyetthoughtofasking,butwhichinyour practical work you will soon find to arise. This playing of practice andstudyintoeachother’shandswilladdvastlytothepleasureandprofitofboth,andwill keepup a zealous and lively interest in yourmindswhichwillmakeyour return to business only second in enjoyment to your setting out on asketchingtour;theonekeepingalivebypracticalusethepleasureandinterestofthelessonslearnedbytheother.

Imustnowsayaword,whichperhapsoughttohavecomeatthebeginningofmylastlecture,aboutpreparationofanotherkindforthisclassofstudy.

I need hardly dwell upon the obvious necessity for having acquired at theoutset,andforconstantlycontinuingtoacquire,aknowledgefrombooksofthesubjectyouarestudying.

Atthebeginningofthiscenturyitwaswhollyunknown;sincethattimeithasgraduallybecomebetterandbetterunderstood;and it is clear that, tocarryonthiscumulativeprocess,eachgenerationofstudentsmusttakeastheirbasisthefullamountofknowledgeyetattained,and—ridingasitwereonthecrestofthewave—mustaddtheirownprogresstothatattainedbytheirpredecessors.Iwillnotattempttoenumeratebooks.Ifyouareanxioustofollowupthesubject,you

willalreadyhave found themoutorwill soondoso. Iwillmention,however,thatyoumustnotlimityourreadingtoEnglishworks,fortheFrenchhavedone,Ithink,evenmorethanourowncountrymentoelucidatethesubject;andamongEnglishwritersletProfessorWillistakealeadingplaceasyourinstructor.

Butwhatyouhave to learn frombooks isnotarchitecturealone. Iwillnotstoptoinsistonthenecessityofgeneralreading,justaseveryoneshouldfollowup: some of the usual classes of general reading are, however (if it werepossible)evenmoredirectlyimportantintheirminutedetailstoarchitectsthanto others: Iwouldmore especially instance historical knowledge, and all thattendstoillustratethechangeswhichhaveinfluencedcivilisation,andthroughithavebornemoreorlessdirectlyuponart.

Thoughantiquarianismisverydistinctfromart,andthoughthearchitecturalstudent should be always on his guard against the danger of reversing therelativepositionsoftheartisticandthearchæologicalportionsofhisstudies,itisneverthelessmanifestthatthetwocanneverbewhollydisconnected.Youmust,therefore, follow up antiquarian studies so far as they have a direct or a realbearinguponyourmainpursuit.

Iwouldmention,inpassing,thatthereisoneantiquariansciencewhichisaspeciallinkofconnectionbetweenthepresentandthepast:IrefertoHeraldry,abranchofstudywhichwe toomuchneglect,butwhichhasverystrongclaimsuponourattention.

Then,again,youmustalwaysstudythemeaningandobjectofeveryancientbuilding which you are examining, that you may know how far its practicalcharacteristics bear upon or are alien to such as belong to our own day. Inecclesiasticalworks this becomes a practical and necessary study; for, thoughtheritualusesandcustomshavegreatlychanged,manyofthemholdgoodinourownday,eitherdirectlyorinsomemodifiedorparallelform,whichconnectsthestudyof the ritualarrangementsofancientchurchesmoreor lessdirectlywithour own.The study, then, of ecclesiastical and ritual history and antiquities isoneofthosedirectlynecessarytothechurcharchitect;though,asinthecaseofantiquarianism, hemust avoid the danger ofmaking it in any degree take theplace,insteadofassistingandguidinghisstudy,ofarchitectureitself.

Iwouldheretaketheopportunityofurginguponthosewhopurposedevotingthemselves especially to Mediæval architecture the necessity of makingthemselves acquainted, in some reasonable degree at least, and the morethoroughly the better,with thewhole range of the history of art. It is only bymeans of such knowledge that we are able to comprehend the true positionwhichMediævalarchitecturetakesinthelongstreamofarthistory.

TheclassicstylesaretheparentsoftheMediævalstyles,andwithoutagoodknowledge of them the Gothic architect is unable to understand his ownarchitecture. More than this, however: Greek art—properly so called—is theparentofGothicsculpture,whetherfoliatedorrelatingtothehumanfigure;andinrespectofthelatteritis(nexttonature)thebestcorrectiveofitsfaults.Iurgeuponyou,therefore,thestudyofGreeksculptureofthebestearlyschools,asadirectmeansofperfectingthatofyourownworks.

Thenagain,withRomanarchitecture,and thecourseof itsdecadence:howreplete is its history with anticipatory suggestions as to the rise of the newarchitecturewhich after a longperiod of darkness sprang up from its decayedroots!AndequallyinstructiveisthestudyofByzantinearchitecture—that“lightinadarkplace”whichwasdestinedtosheditsrayssobeneficentlyontherising,butyetembryo,artsoftheMiddleAges.

Amostinterestingadditionhasrecentlybeenmadetoourknowledgeofthisstylebytheresearchesof theCountdeVogüéamongtheruinedcitiesrecentlydiscoveredinthemountainsofCentralSyria.

[Imageunavailable]Fig.192.—ElBarah,CentralSyria.

These cities seem to have been in prosperity up to the moment of theMahometanconquestofSyria,buttohavebeensuddenlydeserted,asinoneday,on the approach of the Arabian armies, and since then to have remaineduntouchedbutbytheelementsandearthquakes;sothattheyhanddowntoustheearlier Byzantine architecture (as practised in Syria) in the most perfect andinstructivemanner.Inthesewonderfulcitieswehavenotonlythechurches,butnearlyeverydescriptionofByzantinebuilding,eithernearlyperfect,or—whenthrowndownbyearthquakes,as isoften thecase—with thepartsstill lyingastheyfell,sothattheentiredesigncanbeperfectlyunderstood.

TheseremainssupplytheconnectinglinkbetweentheByzantineandtheoldClassicstyles;butit isthe laterbuildings,suchasSt.Mark’satVenice,whichgivethelinkattheoppositeendofthechain,connectingitwiththechurchesofAquitaine,andthroughthemwithourownRomanesqueandtransitionalworks;while thevariousproductionsofByzantineartof thesameperiod,withwhichWesternEuropewassoliberallysupplied,becamethegermsfromwhichmuchoftheornamentationofourownearlierworksoriginated.AllthisitbehovestheGothic architect to study; nor should he neglect the parallel supplies ofsuggestions from the Mahometan styles—themselves the offspring of theByzantine.Butstillmoreincumbentisitonhimtofollowoutthatdirectcatenaby which, in Western Europe, the Roman style passed through the EarlyBasilicanphase inSouthern Italy, theLombardic inNorthern Italy,[82] and thevariousderivativeformsofRomanesqueinSouthernFranceandRhineland,aswellasinthelessfamiliarEuropeancountries.

Inallthesevariedcoursesofgradualchangeitisyetmoreinteresting,andfarmoreprofitable,totraceout—asdistinctfromallquestionsofarchitecturalstyle—theritualandpracticalchangesthroughwhichthebasilica,soearlyadoptedasthe great type of theChristianChurch, became the parent of the typical formmadeuseoftoourowndayandforourownchurches,andthosebywhichthelater-introduced Greek cross was perfected into the form of the Byzantinechurches, and the less usual circular type into that of a series of exceptionalchurchesboth in theEast andWest.The first of thesecatenæ, inparticular, ismost interesting to ourselves, as showing that our own form of church is ourdirect inheritance from the earliest Christian temple: and, though we may dowell toconsiderhowfar theseriesofchangesthroughwhichithasreachedusmaybeadvantageouslyfollowedupbyanyadditionalmodificationtomeetthe

truedemandsofourownday,yetGod forbid thatwe should so far forget theclaimsofourlongdescentastoletgothispreciousinheritanceofourfathers![83]

Thereis,however,anothermoredirectkindofpreparation,onwhichIdesiremosturgently to insist. Imeanyourpersonal trainingasartists.True it is thatyoursketchingtourswillbeagreatmeansofpromotingthis;butthiswillnotdoalone: you must constantly strive to train your eye and your hand to artisticperception and skill. You should take lessons from first-rate teachers both indrawingandincolouring;youshouldtakesomemeansoftrainingyourselvesindrawing the human figure and in animal drawing, and even in modelling ifopportunity permits. Thesemeans ought unquestionably to be afforded to thearchitectural students by this Academy as a special and most important andessentialpartoftheirtraining.Thatsuchisnotthecaseatpresentis,Ibelieve,the result of the crampedand insufficienthousingwhichhasbeen allowedus,andIdotrustthatthishindrancewillsoonberemoved.[84]

Youshouldfurtherpractiseyourselvesindrawingandmodellingfromnaturalleavesandflowers,and,sidebysidewiththis,indrawingfromfineexamplesofsculpturedfoliage,whethernaturalorconventional,forwhichlast-namedobjectyou have great facilities offered by the ArchitecturalMuseum; and all this, Iwould suggest, can be going on during the winter months when you cannotsketchfromactualbuildings.Withoutthistrainingyouwillfindyourselvesatagreat disadvantage in studying for original works; your attempts at drawingsculpture,whetherfiguresorfoliage,willdisgustanddisheartenyou,andevenyour sketches from purely architectural objects will be both dispiriting toyourselves at the time, will fail to express the true feeling of the worksthemselves,andwillconveynoagreeableimpressionswhenyoureverttotheminafteryears.

Youwill have gathered from incidental remarks as I have proceeded that Ihavenotsupposedyoutolimityourattentionandstudytoarchitectureproperlysocalled.Timedoesnotallowmetogofartherintothesubjectofcollateralarts;butletmesaythat,asarchitectureunitesallartsinone,soyoumustgatherintoher garner the spoils to be collected from the study of every art by whicharchitecturemaybeennobledandenriched.

IhavesaidnothinginthecourseoftheforegoingremarksastothechoiceorpreferenceyouwouldhavetoexerciseamongspecimensofdifferentMediævalperiodsand styles,but Ihave saidenough to show that Idonot supposeyourstudiesoftheoldbuildingsinourownandneighbouringcountriestobelimitedtooneselectedperiod,noreventowhatcanbestrictlycalledMediævalworks,as much that is useful can be gathered (particularly in domestic work) from

buildingsof the sixteenthandseventeenthcenturies. It isabsolutelynecessary,too,thatyoushouldunderstandandbefamiliarwithallthevarietiesofouroldarchitecture,because,thoughyoumaynotfollowtheminyourownworks,youmay be frequently called upon to restore them, though this reason is hardlynecessarytoleadyoutomasterthewholerangeofMediævalart.

Still,however,youcannotchoosebutfollowmorelovinglytheworksoftheperiodswhichmostapprovethemselvestoyourmindsasthedayswhenartwasthemostvigorous,noble,andfullofdeepandtruesentiment.Formyownpart,thoughIamlessexclusivethanmanyofmyfriends,ImustconfessthatIfindadifficultyinsketching,unlesswithadirectlypracticalobject,fromworkseithersoearlyastoberudeorsolateastobeenervated.AndwhileIbegyoutomakeyourselvesmastersof thewhole range, I am far fromaskingyou to check thegenialcurrentofthesoulbyendeavouringtoloveallvarietiesalike,ortogiveequalattentiontothosewhichareandthosewhicharenotinharmonywithyourinnerfeelings.

Ihavedweltmuch, inmyearlier lectures,on thestudyof thevigorousandonward-strivingworksofthetransition:andIconfessthattomethisisthemostcaptivatingperiod.Ihavealreadysufficientlyindicatedtheleadingexamplesofit, thoughyouwill find it interspersedwithother styles all over the country. Ithinkmyself thatnostyleismorecalculatedtoexciteagrandeurofsentiment,butnoneseemstometohavebeensolittlestudiedfromEnglishexamples,orrather,Ishouldhavesaid,fromBritishexamples,foritisasfinelydevelopedinWalesandinScotlandasitisinEngland.Ihavesaidagooddealaboutstudyingitasahistoricalphaseofthestyle,butthis,thoughnecessary,isinpointoffactaverysecondarymatter.Youmustmuchratherstudyitartistically,withreferenceto its intrinsic merits and its noble beauty, and morally, as illustrating theelevatedsentimentandnobleearnestnessofthosewho,whilepressingforwardanewstyleofart,generatedateverystepsuchgloriousproductions.

I have said less, perhaps, and spoken with less enthusiasm of the fully-developedEarlyPointed style,not froma lowerappreciationof itsmerits,butbecauseitseemsratherabreathing-place—apointofattainment—inthemarch,than especially a point of noble pressing onward. Nor need I enumerate thespecialobjectsofstudybelongingto theperiod.Theyaresownbroadcastoverourownandneighbouring lands,andformthestapleofourmostmagnificent,anda largeproportionofourhumble,Mediæval remains.No tour,however, ismoreprolificofinstructioninthisstylethanthatofthenorthernabbeys,andthistourmayberepeatedagainandagainwitheverfreshdelight,andextendedwithgreatprofitoverthebordersandfarawayintoScotland.

Afterthiswecometoanothertransition,and—theperiodofrestbeingatanend—we find again much of the same earnest striving as during the earliertransition.Iwouldrecommendaveryspecialamountofstudytobedevotedtothis style—for it isnot reasonable tosuppose that traceriedwindowsare tobebanishedfromourrevival;andloving,asmostofusdo,thevigouroftheearlierperiods,thissecondtransition—theconnectinglinkbetweentheearlierandthemiddle periods—offers most valuable material for our own developments:indeed,Icannotconceiveofamorepromisingcourseofcorrectivetrainingforthoseamonguswhohavefollowedearlyandforeignworktillithasgrownintoanactualmania,thantosetthemselvesthetaskoffollowingup,nolensvolens,theminute study in all itsdetailsof a carefully selected seriesofworkof thissecondEnglishtransition.

ForsuchacourseIwouldespeciallyrecommendthefollowingexamples:—The greater part of Netley Abbey; all the eastern portions ofWestminster

Abbey; the eastern arm of Lincoln Cathedral;[85] the chapter-house[86] andcloisters at Salisbury; all that remains of Newstead Abbey; and the nave ofLichfieldCathedral.OfaperiodashadelaterIwouldrecommendthenaveofSt.Mary’s Abbey at York; the whole of Tintern Abbey; the chapter-houses atSouthwell andatYork, and the easternparts atSt.Albans.The two latter are,however,productionsofthecompletedstyleratherthanofthetransition,andtogive a list of objects of study in that style would be almost hopeless, for thecountryisfilledwiththem.NordoIadmiresoexclusivelytheearlierworkastoexclude from thebetterhalf ofourMediæval rangeyet later specimensof theMiddle Pointed. I cannot but think the gateways of St. Augustine’s atCanterbury, of Battle Abbey, and of that of Bury St. Edmund’s; the halls ofMayfield,Penshurst,andthelosthallatWorcester;thelostchapelandthestillexisting crypt of St. Stephen’s; the choir at Winchelsea; the Lady Chapel atChichester;andalonglistofotherbuildingsoftheearlierpartofthefourteenthcentury, to be works claiming our high regard and admiration, and Iconsequentlyrecommendthemalsotoyourcarefulstudy.

The very latest phase of the Decorated style is often weak, but I will notsupposeyoutobesomuchsoastobeunabletoseveritsbeautiesfromitsfaults,or to be in danger of condemning or admiring good and bad alike; and a yetmorevigorousdiscretionisneededinstudyingfromtheworksofthesucceedingages,though,allthrough,youwillfindnotonlyobjectsofhighintrinsicmerit,butconstantsuggestionscapableofbeingadvantageouslytranslatedintoamorevigorousstyle.[87]

AstillmoreimportantsubjectIhaveasyetbutincidentallytouchedupon.I

refertothepracticalcharacterofyourstudiesofancientexamples,asviewedinconnectionwith theactualstructuralandmechanicalqualitiesof theexamplesthemselves,andthelearningfromancientexamplestheprinciplesofMediævalconstructionandpracticalart,andtheirbearingsuponourownconstructiveandpractical operations. Thus, for example, youmust give special and systematicstudytotheprinciplesofvaultingasexemplifiedbyMediævalbuildings.Ihave,inoneofmy lectures, recommended, as aprelude to such study,your readingProfessorWillis’s paper on the subject in the Transactions of the Institute ofBritish Architects andM. Viollet le Duc’s in hisDictionary. You will be thebetter prepared after this to work the subjects out for yourselves. It is aparticularlydifficultmattertostudy,bothinitsownnatureandbecausetheworkis usually out of reach. You should watch for opportunities offered byscaffoldingsbeingraisedundervaultings,andmakeaccuratemeasurements.Youmust study not only the lines and their setting out, but the stone cutting andjointing, and all kinds of practical questions, the very existence ofwhich youcannotunderstandtillyouhavegivenmuchattentiontothesubject.Then,whenyou have obtained a perfect insight into these questions, you will do well toconsiderwhetherthereareorarenotpracticalfaultsintheoldworkwhichweshoulddowelltoremedy.Sointimber-workweshouldmastertheoldsystemofconstruction, and then think how far it is perfect and where open toimprovement,andalsohowfartheoldsystemasappliedtooakissuitedtoourownconstructionsin fir,andwhatare thepracticalvariationssuggestedbythematerial.Andsoonthroughstone-work,iron-work,brass-work(whethercastorwrought), lead-work, silver-work, and jewellery. You must not contentyourselves with studying and sketching from the work as an architectural ordecorative design, but must dissect and investigate it, and find out itsconstruction,andhowfarthatconstructionhasmodifiedorsuggesteditsdesign,orhowfarthismayresultfromnotonlytheconstruction,butthenatureofthematerial.

Inrespectofthemetal-workandotherkindsofdecorativeart,youwillfindgreatadvantage fromcarefully readingMr.Burges’s lectures,givensome timebackbeforetheSocietyofArts.

By thus following up your studies from all points of view, whetherantiquarian,historical,artistic,ritual,utilitarian,orpracticalandmechanical,youwill obtain that perfect understanding of Mediæval art which is necessary toenable you to carry on its revival and practice both with knowledge andintelligence.

Inowcometotheactualpracticeofthelessonslearnedbysuchacourseof

studyasIhavebeenendeavouringtoshadowforth.AsIsaidonaformeroccasion,Iwillnotgointothegeneralquestionofthe

revivalofGothicarchitecture,butwillassumeitasafaitaccompli,andproceedtoconsidersomequestionsastothepracticalcarryingofitout.

OnepointwhichhasgivenrisetomuchdifferenceofopinionisthequestionofwhatperiodandvarietyofMediævalarchitectureweshouldbesttakeasthegroundworkofourowndevelopments.

When, during the long interval between the cessation of Mediævalarchitecture and our own day, it was temporarily returned to in any specialinstance, it seems tohavebeenviewedratherasadormant thananextinctart,and the style chosen was always its latest phase; as if it had only to be re-awakenedatthepointatwhichithadfallenasleep.Andinthesamemanner,inourownday,nearlyalltheearlierworksoftherevivalwereinthelatestformofthe style, as if the revival was the mere prolongation of a chain, and to beattachedtoitslastlink.

Thiswasthetraditionalphaseintherevival.Theintervalhad,however,beentoolengthenedtoallowthisimaginedconnectionwiththeoldbutdisusedchaintoholdgood.Peoplebegantoinvestigateandtophilosophiseandtowritebooksabout the style.Allphases soonbegan tobeequallyknown,andpeoplecouldnot help entertaining preferences. Rickman had awarded the palm to theDecorated;otherspreferredtheEarlyEnglish;andafteratimeallagreedthatthelatest linkwas theworst, andmustnotbe adopted as the starting-point. Sometried Norman, some Early English, some Decorated. The Cambridge CamdenSocietyseemedatfirsttofavourEarlyEnglish;butsoontheylaidtheirbanuponit,andpreachedacrusadeagainstallbutthesacred“MiddlePointed,”andevendefinedwithminuteaccuracythepreciseperiodofthatstylewhichtheywouldstampwith their approval. Itwas to be the earliest phase of the later form ofMiddlePointed;or,asafriendofminejokinglydefineditforthem,the“Earlylate Middle Pointed.” Some, however, preferred the “late Early,” some theearliestMiddle Pointed; and though a few still strayed into the heterodoxy of“First Pointed,” or even into deadlier errors, it came, after a time, to be agenerallyreceivedopinionthattheMiddlestylewasthebestgroundworkforustogoupon,andthatitmightfairlybeviewedthatthishadbeensocompletelyrevivedandre-adoptedastobecomethestyleofourGothicRenaissance.

Thoughtherewasagooddealofnonsensecurrentaboutitatthetime,asifitwere almost an article of religious faith, an “Articulus stantis aut cadentisEcclesiæ,”therewas,Imustsay,agreatdealofcommonsenseinthechoice.

Theearlytransitionalstyle,thoughgloriouslynobleandvigorous,couldnot

reasonablybere-adoptedasagroundworkinasmuchasitwasa transition,andthat froma stateof thingswithwhichwehavea littleornothing in common.ThedevelopedEarlyPointedhadvery strongclaims, but failedofbeingwhatDr. Whewell calls “complete Gothic.” Its fault was that there were certainfeatureswhich,onceknown,couldnotberejected,butwhichtheEarlyPointedhadnot.Itsmeritswerepositiveandofthehighestorder;itsdefectswerepurelynegative.ThelaterPointedhadbeenprettygenerallyvotedtobetheproductionof the decline of the style, and the later half of the Middle Pointed showedunquestionableevidencesthatduringitsperiodthewayforthatdeclinehadbeenpreparing.TheEarlyMiddlePointedwasthuscometobyanexhaustiveprocess,as being at once “complete” and not on the decline, though some felt (and Iconfesstobeingofthenumber)thatitmightwithadvantagebeinvigoratedbyimporting into it a good deal of the detail, and, even, perhaps, some wholefeaturesoftheearlierstyle.

This general conclusion having been tacitly consented to, people naturallycametothinkthatweoughttoadheretoitascloselyasmightbe,andforthisreason:thattheprincipleofarevivalwasonlydefensibleinanextremecase,andnothingcoulddefendit fromthechargeoffrivolity if thereviverswentontheprincipleofnowrevivingonestyleandnowanother;but that ifallbygeneralconsentshoulddetermineonrevivingoneandthesamestyle,asthegroundworkfor the future development of a style of our own, the revival would becomeinvestedwithreality,reason,andvigour.Thechoice,then,ofonestyle,andtheadherencetoitasagroundwork,seemstometohavebeenright,andIamverymuchdisposedtobelievethatthechoicecometo,thoughitsenforcementatthattimeborderedonfanaticism,wasrightalso;atleastinthemain.

This promising theory, not tomentionoccasional tokensof rebellion at thesomewhat tyrannicalway inwhich itwas attempted to be pressed, received arudeshocksometenyearsbackthroughthecompetitionfortheerectionofthecathedral atLille.Wehad been in the habit in this country of speaking ratherpityingly of the error of the French revivalists in selecting an earlier type fortheir groundwork than we had adopted; but the programme of this greatEuropeancompetitionprescribed this early style, andour talented countrymenwho won the palm leaped over the traces to such an extent, as absolutely toluxuriateinthetillnowforbiddenart,evenbeyondwhatwasdemandedbytheconditions,andbeattheFrenchoutofthefieldintheintensityoftheirfollowingoutoftheEarlyFrenchstyle.

Thiswasreceivedwithunlooked-forindulgencebythosewhoselawsitsetatnought;butsomarkedacondonationseemedtohavebeenviewedasanactof

emancipation,for,fromthattimeforward,everyonebegantodothatwhichwasrightinhisowneyes.

There was at once a violent revulsion of feeling in favour of the earliestperiods; and at the same time the long pent-up feelings of favour to thecontinentalstyles,excitedbyMr.Ruskinandbyforeigntravel,weregiventheirfull swing, and for a time nothing could be early enough—nothing foreignenough—tosatisfytheemancipatedcravings.Weallfeltthis,andactedonitinagreater or a less degree, and those who chose the less degree were heartilydespisedby thosewho chose thegreater.[88]As time,however, rolledon, andcool reflection began to assert her sway, we again remembered that we wereEnglishmen, and that there was an English language in architecture, and webeganagainalsotorecollectthatthecourseofGothicarchitecturedidnotceaseto create noble productions in the very period of its coming into existence.Some,onawakeningtothisconsciousness,ranatonceintotheoppositeextreme—condemningeverylessontheyhadlearnedabroad,eschewingtheearlystylesto which they had so recently sworn exclusive allegiance, and despising(accordingtoprescribedcustom)allwhodidnotgosofarintheirnewdirectionastheydidthemselves;but,onthewhole,peoplenowseemlikelytosettledownintoaviamedia,inwhichItrustthatcommonsensewillbefoundtoreside.

Iwouldnothavegonethroughthislistofpeccadilloesbutforthepurposeofwarningyouagainsttheirrepetition.Wehave,Ihope,“sownourwildoats.”Letusnowtakeasteadyandsensiblecourse.

During the stateof chaoswhich I have alluded to, our revival has sufferedseriouslyfromthefollies,notsomuchofitsownchampions,asofanumberofpretenderswhohadneverstudiedthesubjectatall,butwho,takingadvantageofaperiodofdisorder,palmedoffuponthepublicdesigns,especiallyindomesticarchitecture,which—reallytheoffspringofignorance—wereputforwardasthatof the prevailing taste—as original developments founded on something veryearly and very foreign; so early, indeed, and so foreign as to have never andnowhereexisted.Theseproductionshavedisfiguredour streetsanddonemorethananythingtobringdiscreditonourrevival.

Let usnowconsiderwhat is the coursewhich it becomesus to take in theselectionofourgroundwork.

Ithinkthatourexperienceofthelastfewyearshassuggestedtous:first,theexpediencyofreturninginsomemodifieddegreetotherulefromwhichwehaddeparted,ofadoptingasournormaltypethearchitectureofoneperiod,andthatnottheveryearliestthoughstillanearlyperiod;but,secondly,thedesirablenessof notmaking our self-imposed rule too strait; of, thirdly,making our revival

distinctly English; though, fourthly, not refusing to enrich and amplify ourEnglishrevivalwiththespoilsofourforeignstudy.

Iwould, then, suggest that,while yourbasis shouldbe the earliest formofwhat has been called “complete Gothic” (such, for example, as that ofWestminsterAbbey,theeasternpartofLincoln,NewsteadAbbey,andthenaveof Lichfield), this should be taken rather in a representative than in a literalsense;thatyourrevivedstyleanditsdevelopmentsshould,inshort,bebasedontheearlierandmorevigoroushalfofMediævalarchitecture,whichearlierhalfshouldberepresented by its central point,asanucleus roundwhich it rallies,andintowhichthebeautiesofthewholemaybecollected;thatthepointchosenshouldbe inclusive ofmuchwhichpreceded and followed it, andexclusiveofnothingwithwhich itwill consistently amalgamate.Norwould I condemn aslatitudinarian an occasional departure, either forward or backward, from thispoint dedépart; only asking that the early stylesmay be, in a certain degree,viewed asone in our revival, rather then split up intomany, and their details,withproper judgmentandself-restraint,beconsideredcapableofbeingunited,when occasion seems really and distinctly to call for it, in one work, or theearlierandlessearlyformsbeused,asmaybepreferred,forbuildingsintendedtoexpressmoreofvigourorofdelicacy.Iwouldnot,however,advocatetoofreea use of this liberty, and would therefore propose that the early “completed”style,ofwhichWestminsterAbbeyisourgreattype,shouldbealwaysviewedasourcentralandnormaltypeandrallying-point.[89]

Then, again, I would recommend a return, loyally and unreservedly, toEnglish types.That is tosay, thatwhen there isnothing tocall foradeviationfrom it, we should design as a matter of course in English. In doing this,however,Iwouldactasawell-instructedandsensibleEnglishwriterwouldact.Hewould(exceptunderextraordinarycircumstances)writeinhisownlanguage,butwouldneverbesosuicidalastorefusetoenrichhismind,andthroughithiswritings,bythestudyofforeignliterature.Hewould,however,expressthoughtsthus learned in English; any passage adopted from foreign writers he wouldprobablytranslateintoEnglish,exceptingonlywhereitsipsissimaverbawereoftheessenceof thequotation.Sowith theEnglisharchitect.Thearchitectureofhisowncountryshouldbehisnormaltype,butitwouldbemadnessforhimtorefuse the lessons he can learn abroad. The results of these lessons should,however, for the most part be translated into English, unless such translationwould destroy their vigour and their meaning. He should, as I have oftenobserved,do—notnecessarilywhat, but—as theoldarchitectsdid. It ispatentthatourNorman,our transitionalPointed,our traceriedwindows,andmanyof

ourminordetailspartakemoreor lessofa foreignorigin.True, theywerenotreally imported from abroad, but our architects and those of France wereworkinghandinhandandmutuallyaidinginthedevelopmentoftheircommonarchitecture;butouroldbuildersneverscrupled,nay,earnestlysought,togatherideaswherever theywent;andyet theirproductions, repleteas theywerewiththe riches gathered in foreign travel, were so unquestionablyEnglish that wedetect any departure from them at once as a foreign interpolation. Let usendeavour in the samemanner so towork in our foreign gatherings as not todisturb thehomogeneouscharacterof thewhole,muchless tosuggest the ideathatwearedesigning ina foreigndialect.We thenneednot feareven to learnandmakeuseoftherichartsofItaliandecoration,andstilllessthemorekindredlessonstaughtusinFrancebythemenwhoworkedsidebysidewithourownoldarchitects.

We are all too apt to run into extremes.We run wildly into early or late,foreignorEnglishwork,accordingtotherageofthemoment;andperhapshatethatwhichwelastdotedon,anddespiseintheirturnallwhoholdopinionsweonceheldourselvesorshallsoonentertain.Idonotcondemn intotoalittleofthistendencytomania,asitkeepsupourzeal,butIwouldwishtorestrainitandbringitwithintherangeofreason;andIthinkthatsuchabroadandliberalruleasIhavesuggestedwilltendtothisend,withoutimposingagallingrestraintornarrowingeitherourrangeofstudyorthewholesomevarietyofourpractice.

Inourownearlieststyle,andintheFrenchexamplesdowntoafarlaterdate,thereisonefeaturewhichIconfessIhaveagreatlovefor—Imeanthesquareandangularabacus.Ithinkitisprobablythefeelingforthisfeaturewhichhas,more than any other, led to our tendency to follow French types. I wouldmention,however,thatitisnotnecessarilyaforeignfeature,asitisfoundinourown earlier style, and sometimes (as in the side chapels of the nave atChichester)iscontinuedlater;norisitnecessarilyaveryearlyform,asitwasinFrance continued to a comparatively late date. I donot, therefore, see thatweneeddenyourselves itsuse. Iwouldonlymoderate it,anduse itandourownmoretypicalroundabacus,andourownmouldedcapital,asfrequentlyas,andonatleastequaltermswith,theother.

Intheformofarches,thoughkeepingtotypicalformsasarule,Iwouldnotdenymyselftheuseoftheroundarchnortheplainsegmentwherethereisanypracticalreasonfortheirintroduction,onlyIwouldnotusetheabnormalformsfrivolously or without a reason. I would assert the greatest liberty in suchmatters, yet restrainmyself by common sense in the exercise of the liberty Iclaim.

I would again advise (particularly in the use you make of your foreignstudies)theavoidingofqueer,odd-lookingfeatures,forwhichtherehasoflatebeensoeageranappetite.Ibelievethatmostofthoseweseeinmodernworksare pure inventions for the sake of novelty and apparent cleverness. The littlestumpycolumnswithgigantic capitals, and all the thousand-and-onepiecesofquirkiness which one sees, are things which, I confess, I have rarely if everfound inoldwork inanycountryorofanyperiod.Wehave reallybecomesoFrenchoflate,inourownimagination,thatnoFrenchmanwouldrecognisehisnative style as seen in our exaggerations of it. All this is a vulgar vice, andshould be repudiated as a person of tastewould all that is loud andvulgar indressorinanythingelse.[90]

All this has led tomuch neglect of our own examples, and, whenwe usethem, to our going too much in the contrary direction; and, from want offamiliaritywith the endless variety they contain,we have got into theway ofconfiningourselves to theirmost typical forms,whereasacarefulstudyofouroldexampleswouldsupplyuswithaninfinityofvarietiesofthemostcharmingkind.

It has for years been a question sub judice, whether architectural foliatedcarving,etc.,ought torepresentnaturalorpurelyconventionalforms.Iamnotgoingtoopenupthiscontroversy,butI thinkitrighttourgeuponyouinyourstudiestofollowupboth,andtoaidthembycarefulstudyoftheactualobjectsof nature which are suggestive either of one or the other. The period I haverecommendedasourcentralrallying-pointwasjustthatatwhichthetwokindsoffoliagewereusedtogetherandonequalterms.Myownopinionisthatnoartcan be a living one which founds its ornamentation wholly upon a bygoneconventionalism.Thisdoesnot,however,prove thatweoughtdirectly tocopynature as it comesbefore us. Ifwedemand conventionalisms, thoughwemayadopt those of our predecessors, we ought to be able to conventionalise forourselves.

For my own part, as I equally admire several of the forms of foliatedornamentIfindintherangeofworksIclaimasourtypes,Iamcontenttousethemeachintheirturn;butIcannotrejectnatureasthegreatguide,thoughthemorewe are able so far to conventionalise her productions and to “bring intoservice,”andsuitthemtotheusestobemadeofthem,thebetterwillourworkbe.

InsculptureIholdthatweoughttobeabletofollowwhatisgoodandnoblein the formof that artwhichbelonged to the finestperiodofour architecture,andyet tounite itwith themostperfect artwhichcanbeproduced.Greekart

unites perfectly with Gothic, but both demand the spirit and soul of the trueartist,aidedbytheuseofwhatheseesinactuallife.Iconfess,however,thatsolittle opportunity is allowed us for cultivating this art in connection witharchitecture,andsosmallthefundsatourdisposal,thatwehavefallenintothesin of putting our sculpture into the hands of men of a very inferior class—extemporised,infact,fromamongstourordinarycarvers;andtheonlywondertomeis,notthattheydosobadly,butsowellastheydo.Thisisanoblesubjectonwhich to follow out a new and higher aim, and the students of the RoyalAcademymight especially devote themselves to its realisation. I fear that weolderarchitectsshallnotsucceed,butwemayclaimaidofyouwhohavebetteropportunities;andIwould,asahelp,suggestacourseofstudyfromthefinestandpurestGreek sideby sidewith thebestGothic sculpture, endeavouring tounitetheirqualities,andtoaddtothemwhatistobegatheredfromthestudyofnature—notonly theusualstudyof thehumanfigure,but rather the importingintosculpturetouchesofnatureandfactastheycomebeforeus.

Tothisalsoweneedtoaddthestudyofanimal sculpture,apoint inwhichsuch artists as we are able to employ are usually, though not always, equallybehind-hand.

Muchthesamemaybesaidoffigurepaintingwhenusedinconnectionwitharchitecture.We ought only to employ those who are really artists, but theseshould train themselvesespecially for thesubject;and if thearchitectcouldfithimselfforthework,somuchthebetter,ifhereallydoesitwell;thoughthiscanneverbecomeagainthegeneralpractice.

I have said a little inmy last lectureon the studyof theold examples andfragmentsofpaintedglasswhichyoufallinwith;Iwouldwishmoreformallyandurgentlytopressthisuponyou.

The foreign fever, from which we are but now recovering, has told mostseverely upon this class of art; for not only has English stained glass beenneglectedasourpracticalguide—notonlyhasthestudyofitbeenalmostwhollyabandoned—butitsveryconservationhasbeenlittlecaredfor;andnotonly inthechurcheswhichcontainbeautifulfragmentshavetheybeencontemptuouslyneglectedasguidestothecharactersofnewwindowsintroduced,buttheyhavebeen constantly and systematically expelled from the windows in which theyexist,andforwhichexpresslytheyweredesigned,tomakewayfornewglass,designedwithoutanyreferencetotheircharacter.Wehavelongbeeninthehabitofabusing,andjustly,thevillageglazierswhoturnoutthebeautifulfragmentsofancientglasswhichoccupytheheadsoflightsandtheopeningsoftracery,tomakewayforuniformquarryglazing;butourglasspaintersaredailydoingthesame thing without remorse, and are the more inexcusable inasmuch as theycannotplead ignorance, and if they chose couldmake thedesignof their newwindows a restoration of the old, and retain the old fragments in their properplaces.Itusuallyhappens,however,thattheyneversee thewindowsforwhichtheyprepare theglass, and are culpably innocentof all knowledgeofwhethertheyorothers in thechurch retain remnantsof theworksof thosewhoare,oroughttobe,theirmasters.[91]

Ihave,inmorethanoneinstance,knownthatsomeofourbestglasspainters,whencalledon to introducewindows intoour finestminsters,havecompletedtheir work without any knowledge of the fact that there remained exquisiteremnantsof the ancient and coeval glassbelonging towindowscorrespondingwiththosetheyweresupplying,andthatofthefinestperiodsoftheart;andhaveconsequentlyfailedtoassimilatetheirworktowhatwasintendedbytheoriginalbuilders.

The clergy, too, areoftengreatly toblame in this.Their eagerness fornew

glassoftenexpelsfromtheirmindsallcarefortheold.Ihaveheardofagood-natured[92]archdeaconinoneof thesoutherncounties,whois readytogive toany friend specimens of the ancient glass he has supplanted by new in his“restored”church.

All this makes it incumbent on you to note and carefully to draw everyfragmentofstainedglasswhichyoumeetwithwhereitisexposedtobelostorneglected;andIwouldfurtherurgeonyouthesystematicandminutestudyofthe better known examples, so that your knowledge of glass painting, as ofarchitecture,maybebaseduponEnglishexamples.Ourglasspaintersareopentothedoublechargeofadheringtooldprecedent tooreligiouslyinitsweakestpoint,andtoolightlyinitsstrongest;forthoughtheirworksarefarfrombeinggenerallyveryclosefollowingsoftheactualdecorativedesignsofoldglass,andparticularlyofEnglishglass,theyaffecttofollowthegrotesquedrawingoftheoldglasspainters,andoftengreatlyexaggerateit.Iwouldratherreversethis,forthedecorativeportionsofoldglassaresoperfectthatitisimpossibletosurpasstheir beauty, while the figure drawing, though often full of deep and noblesentiment,isusuallyquaintandevengrotesque.[93]

In respect, however, of the figure drawing, I am very far indeed fromadvisingtherepudiationintotooftheancientmanner.Itisonlythecorrectionofthe drawing that I advocate. I would adhere rigidly to the principle ofrepresenting the figures mainly (though not wholly) by means of sharp hardoutline.We know from the Greek Vases (if, indeed, any proof were wantingwhere the fact is soobvious) that anoutlinemaybeasabsolutelyartistic asafinished painting. Iwould further adhere to thegeneral sentiment and artisticstyle of the old glass, but Iwould urge that the sentiment and style should befollowedoutwithasperfect drawing (were it possible) as an oldGreek artistwouldhavebroughttobearuponit.AsanimaginaryillustrationofwhatImean,Iwouldendeavourtorealisewhattheresultwouldbeifpenciloutlinecopiesofthebestthirteenthcenturyfiguresubjectswereplacedinthehandsofsuchamanas Flaxman, or any really high-class artist, capable of appreciating theirsentimentandwellversedinGreekartofthenoblestperiod,forthepurposeofsimplycorrectingtheirdrawingwithoutchangingtheirsentimentandmotive.Itis just such drawing as onemay suppose to result from such a process that Iwouldwishtoseeinourmodernchurchwindows.InsecularworksIwouldnotoppose some departure from the rigidity of such a style, nor a little furtheraddition of shading and high finish, though never to the concealment of theoutline;andinbothIwouldavoidallthatisgrotesqueorover-quaint(exceptingin subjects or figures which demand it, and where it is of the essence of the

motive),as thesequalities introducedintoserioussubjectsare, tosaytheleast,contrarytothegeneralspiritoftheage,andare,therefore,falseandunreal.

Inpainteddecorationsonwalls, etc.,muchgreater libertymaybe allowed.We have not here thematerial limiting the class of art made use of, and thetreatmentmay therefore suit itself freely to theconditions suggested—first,bythepurposeofthebuilding;secondly,byitsscaleofdecorativecharacterandthelimitsof cost; and thirdly,by themoreor less functionalnatureof the surfaceoccupied. We may, in fact, vary from outline pure and simple to perfectlyfinished paintings, and from a severe and solemn treatment to any reasonabledegreeoflightnessandfreedom,accordingtotheconditions:everrememberingthat the more functional the surface, the less must be the apparent relief. Apainting in a panelmay have any amount of shadow and distance,while thatoccupying awall, a pier, or a vaultmust be kept sufficiently flat as to avoiddisturbing the functional character of the object which is the ground of thepainting.

Agreatdealhasbeensaidaboutdevelopmentinarchitecture,andagooddealofharmhasresultedfromit:notthatdevelopmentistobeobjectedto—farfromit;butbecause trueandgenuinedevelopmentwillneverbe the resultofdirectanddeliberateeffort.

The truedevelopmentswehave to look for are such aswill be continuallyforceduponusbythenecessitiesofnewmaterials,newmodesofconstruction,newrequirements,andthealteredhabitsandfeelingsoftheageinwhichweareliving;bythedifferentmodesofdecorationwhichwillfromtimetotimeofferthemselvestoournotice,andtheimportingintoEnglisharchitectureartswhichhad previously been peculiar to that of other countries and perhaps towhollydifferentstyles.Theconditionsalsoprescribedbyworksindifferentclimates—asinIndia,inNorthAmerica,orinAustralia—demandspecialdevelopment.

Thefrankandnaturalmeetingofthesenewdemandsandnewfacilitieswillof itself producedevelopments enough to distinguish theworks of our revivalfromthoseofoldtimes,withoutouraffectingtoalterthoseelementsofourstylewhich are not naturally affectedby any such conditions. I have said somuch,however, on these subjects elsewhere, that I will not venture to crowd theirmultitudinousdetailsintothislecture:onlysuggesting,inpassing,thatdomesticarchitectureby itsabsolutedemandsmustofnecessity suggestverymanynewdevelopments;thatanotherwidefieldfornoveltyoftreatmentisofferedbythewroughtironconstructionandfire-proofconstructionofourday;andthattherestill remains to us the solution of the noble problem of the introduction andnaturalisationofthedomeasafeatureofourrevivedstyle.

IwillnowsayaveryfewwordsonanotherbranchofthepracticeofaGothicarchitect:thatwhichrelatestotherepairsandrestorationofancientbuildings.

WhatIhavesaidonthestudyofancientexamplesastheoneandonlysourceof knowledge of architecture, of necessity carries with it the assertion of thevalue of those examples, whether of a higher or of a humbler class, and thecondemnationofthosewhowoulddepriveusofthesemonumentsofancientartortamperwiththeirgenuinenessorintegrity.Yet,strangetosay,alargenumberof the architects who take in hand the so-called restoration of our ancientbuildingsseemutterlydevoidofallfeelingfortheirvalueasauthenticworksofolden time. I knowno subject connectedwith architecturemoremournful anddistressing than theway inwhichouroldchurchesarebut toogenerallydealtwith.Manyofourlargetownscontainoneormorearchitectswhosystematicallypreyuponthesurroundingchurches,moreorlessruiningeverythingtheytouch,and that without remorse, and combating with the utmost energy everyremonstranceagainst theirdestructivehabits.Norare theyalone toblame.Theclergytoooftenlovetohaveitso.Iftheycangettheirchurchesmadesmart,theyoften seem to care little about the destruction of their antiquities; and thus,between them and their architects,whole counties are becoming denuded of agreatpartofthepointsofinterestintheirchurches.Nay,themanwhocommitsthegreatestdevastationsoftenearnsthegreatestamountofcommendation;andonewho venerates an old building and seeks to preserve its antiquities has tofightforeveryinchofgroundagainsttheoppositionofthepartiesinterestedinthework.Thesedestructive tendenciesarenot limited to theminor featuresofchurches, but often involve the whole buildings, or large parts of them, indestruction,andthatwithoutashadowofnecessity.Oneof thesedestroyersofchurchesiscalledin,andatoncecondemnsallhedoesnotfancyorwhichcanbe shown tobeout of repair; the clergymanappeals to theneighbourhood forfundstomeetthesadstateofthingsportrayedbyhisarchitect;thewholeorpartofitisdestroyed,andnoregardtoitsformerdesignispaidinitsreconstruction.Thisisgoingonalloverthecountry,withtheapplauseoflocalmagnatesandthelaudationsofthelocalpapers:thearchitectandhispatronsgloryintheirsuccess,while the country is robbed, one by one, of its invaluable and irreplaceableantiquities.[94]

EventhesocietiesformedforthestudyofourantiquitiesfailtoliftuptheirvoicessufficientlyagainstthisfearfulVandalism,whilemanywhoshouldbetheguardiansofourancientchurchesusespeciousargumentsinconfutationoftheprotestsofthosewhodaretodenouncetheatrocitieswhichareperpetrated.

I have expressed myself pretty fully on the subject elsewhere, and have

spokenalsoaboutthespiritinwhichweshouldundertakesuchadditionstooldchurchesasabsolutenecessitydemands;andIamhappytosaythattheInstituteofBritishArchitectshave issuedmost judicious and strongly-wordedcodesofsuggestionsastothetreatmentofoldbuildings,sothatItrustthepublicwillatsome timebe awakened to themonstrous coursewhich is being too generallyfollowed.IgooverthegroundonthisoccasionbecauseIsupposemyselftobeaddressingmanyofthosetowhosekeepingourchurchesandotheroldbuildingswill be at a future time committed. I desire towarn you at the outset againstfollowing the steps of those whose misdeeds I have been proclaiming; and Iclose these lectureswith an earnest entreaty that youwill enter upon practicewithasolemnvowtoyourselvestobethedeterminedandconsistentprotectorsand conservators of those precious relics of former days, now consecrated byantiquity,andfromwhichaloneyoulearntheartwhichIamurgingyoutostudy.

“Itwereapiouswork,Ihearyousay,Topropthefallingruin,andtostayTheworkofdesolation.ItmaybeThatyesayright:but,oh,worktenderly:Bewarelestonewornfeatureyeefface;Seeknottoaddonetouchofmoderngrace;Handlewithreverenceeachcrumblingstone,Respecttheverylichenso’eritgrown;Andbideachancientmonumenttostand,Supportede’enaswithafilialhand.’MidallthelightahappierdayhasbroughtWeworknotyetasourforefatherswrought.”

ENDOFVOL.I.

FOOTNOTES:[1] I fancy Mr. Freeman, who has perhaps more right than any living author to a dogmatic

opiniononthisquestion,wouldthinkthatIhavegonetoofarinthisstatement;andthatthecourseofarchitecturewaslessbrokenat thisperiodthanI imaginedwhenwritingtheabove.InItaly,Ihavesince come to the opinion, the history of architecture was fairly continuous, in spite of Gothicinvasions,etc.AlthoughthearchitectureatPavia,etc.,calledbyMr.T.Hope“Lombardic,”hasbeenprovedtobeofdatesfarlaterthanhesupposedwhengivingitthatname,IfeelconvincedthattrulyLombardarchitecturedoesexist,andthatofatypenaturallysucceedingandcarryingonthestyleofthe earlierBasilicæ.AtLucca, for instance, though little attention has been paid bywriters on itschurches, toanythingearlier thanthePisanworkof the twelfthcentury,acarefulexaminationwillshowthatmanyofthemhaveanucleus(andsomefarmore)ofamuchearlierdate,reachingbacktothetimeoftheLombardkings(G.G.S.1878).

[2]Seenoteonthissubjectinthepreviouslecture.(G.G.S.1878.)

[3]Ibid.[4]Mr.Freeman,invol.v.ofhis“NormanConquest,”hastreatedadmirablyofthearchitecture

ofthisperiod,underthenameof“PrimitiveRomanesque.”(G.G.S.1878.)[5] I do not knowwhether thewestern bays of theChurch of S. Pierre, adjoining theAbbey

ChurchatJumiéges(whichbaysseemtohavebelongedtotheoriginalchapter-house),belongtotheolderbuildingdestroyedbytheNormans,ortothatrebuiltin930byGuillaumeLongue-Epeé.TheyareinstylenotNorman,butrefined“PrimitiveRomanesque.”(G.G.S.1878.)

[6]Thereisanexceptiontothisinthevaultingofcurvedspaces,suchasthecircularaisleroundanapseinwhichtheribsassumeawavedplan.(G.G.S.)

[7]SeeviewsofSt.Faith’sChapel,vol.ii.LectureXIII.[8]St.Cross,SeeLectureIII.,p.320.[9]InteriorViewofSt.Joseph’s,SeeLectureIII.,116.[10]ThelengthtowhichtheLecturehasextendeditselfhasrendereditnecessaryforthepresent

topassovertheGermantransitionwithveryslightnotice.(G.G.S.)[11]Ioughttocouplewiththevaultingallwide-spannedarches;butinavaultedbuildingthey

naturallygotogether.(G.G.S.1878.)[12]Thereissomeuncertaintyastothebuildingtowhichthesefragmentsbelonged.(G.G.S.

1878.)[13]Abetteracquaintancewithsouthernbuildingsdoesnotwholly remove thisdifficulty.The

GreekandRomantypesseemtobeagooddealmixedinthem.(G.G.S.1878.)[14]FromacarefulexaminationoftheoldcapitalsremovedfromthechurchofSt.Frondduring

the“Restoration,” Iobserve that theyare scarcely sodistinct in theirByzantinecharacter as thoselaterspecimenswhichIhavebeenspeakingof.Thismakesmesuspect that throughout the twelfthcenturyactuallyByzantinecarverswereemployedinFrance.Without thisIcannotaccountfor thecontinuanceoftheByzantinefeelinginallitspurityforsolongatime.(G.G.S.)

[Imageunavailable]Fig.28.—Capitalsfromthenorth-westPortal,LincolnCathedral.

[15] We find the Byzantine feeling every here and there strongly developed in our owntransitionalexamples.Iwillmentionasaninstancethenorth-westportalofLincolnCathedral,whereitisbeautifullyexhibited.(Fig.28).(G.G.S.)

[16]Seepage93,Fig.38.[17]ThesameconstructionappearstohavealsoexistedbothatTewkesburyandatPershore.(G.

G.S.)[18]Seepage85,Fig.27.[19]1858.[20]ItiscurioustoobservepreciselythesameartasintheeasternpartofNôtreDameexhibited

inthetiny,butexquisitechoir,closeby,ofSt.JulienlePauvre.[21]Anothersmallbuthighlyvaluableexample is thebeautiful ruinedchurchofSt.EvremontatCreil.Anexampleof thisstyle,whichIhavenotseenmuchnoticedinbooks,isthecathedralatGeneva.Iamunacquaintedwithitshistory,butshouldsupposethataconsiderableintervaloccurredbetweenitslowerandupperstages,thelatterbeing of perfected Early Pointed, while the former is as admirable a transitional work as I haveanywheremetwith.ItpartakesinsomepartsofthatclassictendencywhichisdisplayedintheearlierpartsofthecathedralatLyons.

TofollowoutthesubjectthroughtheSouthofFrancewouldnotonlybeuselessinillustratingtheEnglishtransition,butwould,compressedintothesmallestspace,beasubjectforanentirelecture.Icannot,however, abstain from just alluding to thenoblemanner inwhich the styleadapts itself toDomed architecture at Angoulême and throughout its neighbourhood, and to the Quasi-domedarchitectureatLePuy.ThelatterhasbeenillustratedinanexcellentpaperbyMr.Street,readbeforethe Institute of British Architects. The southern form of the transition must have been noblyexemplifiedbythechurchofSt.GillesnearNismes,beforethatcharmingchurchbecameruinedinthereligiouswarsofthesixteenthcentury.Theentireplanofthechurchstillremainsintelligible,asdoesmostofthesuperstructure;anditisdifficulttoimagineanythingmorenoble.Thethreewesternportalsarebetterknown,andare trulymagnificent.Parallel to themare thewesternportaland thecloisterofSt.Trophimus[22]atArles.ThechurchatSt.Gillesretainsthedateofitscommencement,1116,which,however,seemstooearlyforitsarchitecture.(G.G.S.1878.)

[21]SeeLectureVIII.,p.320,Figs.183,184,185,186.[22]SeeLectureVI.,229.[23]Thecarvingofthemoreadvancedstyleheredescribedbelongsprobablytothebeginningof

the thirteenthcentury.M.Viollet leDucseems to think that thewestern façadewasnotbegun tillabout1218;butIthinkitmusthavebeenearlier,becausethecorbelsandupperjamb-stonesofthesouth-westernportal,unliketherest,areofexquisiteByzantineworkmanship.(G.G.S.1878).

[24]AmorecarefulexaminationshowsthatfarthelargerpartofDarlingtonisoflaterdate,usingup, aswould appear, details prepared byPudsey,whodied before the church hadmade anygreatprogress.(G.G.S.)

[25]ThereisworkoftheCanterburytypeinthedoublechapeltothekeepofDoverCastle,andinterpolatedworkbythesamehandinthechurchhardby,inwhichSaxonworkisre-usedasmaterialfortransitionalwork.(G.G.S.1878.)

[26]ThedatesaregiveninProfessorWillis’sexcellentpaperontheAbbey.Theyarefrom1186

onwards.TheolderAbbeywasburntdownin1186.TheChapelnowknownasthatofSt.Joseph,butwhichwasreallytheLadyChapel,wasfirstrebuilt,andthechurchfollowedimmediatelyafterwards.(G.G.S.1878.)

[27]TheclerestoryandtriforiumofSt.GermaindesPreshaveundergonesomealterationsfromtheoriginalforms.(G.G.S.1878.)

[28]ThisworkatChichesterwasexecutedatthecloseofthecentury,afterthefireof1186;butProfessorWillishasshownthatsomeearlyPointedworkofaverymarkedcharacter,whichexistsinthewesternpartoftheLadyChapel,musthavebeenerectedpreviouslytothatevent.

[29] This unfoliated capital I have since noticed in the Church at Tulle in Limousin, wheresimplicitywassuggestedbythematerial—granite.(G.G.S.)

[30]I readapaperon theEnglishTransition,especiallyviewedinreference to itsEnglishandFrenchelements,beforetheArchæologicalInstitutionatCanterburyin1875.SeetheirJournal.(G.G.S.1878.)

[31]ForillustrationseeLectureIV.,Fig.109.[32]ForillustrationseeLectureV.,Fig.116.[33]ItisfairtosaythatProfessorWillisdoubtedthedategiventothisGalilee.(G.G.S.1878.)[34]InthechurchofSt.FrancisatAssisi,aGermanandanItalianarchitectworkedtogether.The

formerimportedintotheworkaGermanversionoftheFrenchPointedstyle,whilethelatterretainedthesemi-classicRomanesqueofhisowncountry—thetwoindefinitelycommingled.(G.G.S.1878.)

[35] The last sentence, though expressing a general truth,must not be taken too literally; for,thoughit isthegreatprincipleofGothicarchitecturetodecorateconstruction,thismaybeeffectedsimplyorrichly,andwithorwithoutsculptureorcarving,accordingtotherequirementsofthecase.(G.G.S.)

[36] I remember conducting for the first timeM.Reichensperger throughWestminsterAbbey,being surprised at his objecting to some details as “Bysantinisch.” This arose from his havingmentallyadoptedlaterstylesashismodels,inwhichnotraceofRomanesqueoriginremains.(G.G.S.1878.)

[37]SeeLectureVII.page248.[38]SeecapitalfromS.Eusèbe,Auxerre,LectureIII.,page101;alsocapitalsfromMontmartre,

LectureVIII.,page319.[39]SeecapitalsfromNôtreDame,SaintChapelle,etc.,LectureIII.pages102and103.[40] Ihavesincediscovered that thegreat fourand five lightwindowsof thechapter-houseat

Westminsterwerefinishedin1253.Theseareofthefullestdevelopment,andhavecuspedheadstotheirlights.(G.G.S.)

Forillustration,seeInteriorofChapter-House,LectureXIV.Vol.ii.[41]Forillustration,seeLectureV.,Fig.122.[42]Forillustration,seeLectureV.,Fig.116.[43] I remember, in the reportofoneof theparishmeetings,Mr.Barclayhavingproposed the

restorationof thegloriousoldnave, an intelligentparishionerexclaiming, “What!keep themgreatelephants’foots?”(G.G.S.1878.)

[44]Iamgladtolearnthatthedrawingsarepreserved,andthattheywill,D.V.,bepublishedbyMr.Dollman.(G.G.S.1878.)

[45]Orrather,insomerespects,ofBeauvais.Thetwowere,nodoubt,jointlyreferredtobytheColognearchitect.(G.G.S.)

[46] Since writing this I have had the privilege of restoring it, and in these days of ante-

restorationIamgladthatsocleararecordhadbeenkeptofitspreviouscondition.(G.G.S.1878.)[47]SeeLectureVIII.,p.320,Figs.178,179.[48]SeeLectureVIII.,p.320,Fig.180.[49]Much discussion has taken place as to who this Pietro—“Petrus Romanus Civis”—was.

Virtue,asquotedbyWalpole,saysitwasPietroCavallini,buthewasonlyachildwhenthisworkwasdone.TheciforiumintheChurchofSt.PaulwithouttheWallsbearsthisinscription;†HOCOPUSFECIT ARNOLFUS CUM SUO SOCIO PETRO!! Monsegnor Xavier Barbier de Montault, who wrote achapterforMr.Parker’sworkonRome,saysthatthiswasPietroCavallini.Ifso,hewasprobablythefatherofthemorecelebratedartist.Thedateoftheworklastnamedis1285,beingsixteenyearslaterthanthatatWestminster.

[50] For east and west windows, see “Digression concerning Windows,” inserted betweenLecturesVII.andVIII.

[51]Forillustration,seeLectureIV.,Fig.109.[52] More recently, on opening out other walled-up arches, etc., the greater part of this

substructurehasbeenfound.Thefragments—about2000innumber—havebeenfittedtogetherandbuiltupintheiroldplace.(G.G.S.1878.)

[53]Sincethiswaswritten,thechurchhasgainedadditionalinterestthroughtheopeningoutofthewallpaintings,whichprobablyformedasortofreredosovereachofthesmallaltarswhichstoodagainsttheNormanpiersinthenave.(G.G.S.)

[54]Thisisreallysomewhatlater.(G.G.S.1878.)[55] This notion has since been entirely disproved, and the architect proved to have been a

memberofanEnglishfamily.(G.G.S.1878.)[56]Forillustration,seeLectureIV.,Fig.87.[57]SeeLectureIII.,p.320,Fig.82.[58] For a bay of this chapter-house, see “Digression concerningWindows,” inserted between

LecturesVII.andVIII.Fig.170.[59]SeeLectureXV.,vol.ii.[60]Forillustration,seeLectureIV.p.164.[61]ThepracticalanduniversallyacknowledgedsuccessoftheAssizeCourtsatManchester,as

comparedwiththoseatLiverpool,speaksvolumesastotherationaleofourstyle.(G.G.S.)[62]Itisamusingtoobservethetriumphanttonewithwhichmodernwritersdelighttoparadethe

bits of untruthfulnesswhich they chance to find in ancientClassic and other structures. Iwonderwhethertheoldarchitectswouldenjoythecomplimentiftheycouldseeworksofourday.(G.G.S.1878.)

[63]Forillustration,seeLectureIII.,Fig.81.[64]SeeLectureIV.,Fig.87.[65]Themannerinwhichourglasspaintersturnoutthesefragments—morepreciousthangold

—tomakewayfor their (oftenvile)memorialwindows isonlyparalleledby theruthlessnesswithwhichtheytearawaytheiron-workwhichoncesustainedthepaintedglass.(G.G.S.1878).

[66]Thereseemstobeaperfectcrusadegoingonagainsttheserelicswhichgivesuchacharmtoourvillages, thoughnothing showsmorepainfully the contrast between the tastefulnessof formertimesandthetastelessnessofthepresentthanacomparisonbetweenthesedespisedremainsandthestructuresbywhichtheyareconstantlybeingreplaced.(G.G.S.)

[67]Orhowwerestonegablesmadetofitthemselvestoathatchedroof?(G.G.S.1878).

[68]Apracticenowhappilylongdiscontinued.(G.G.S.1878).[69]SeeLectureIII.,pp.107,108.[70]SeeLectureV.,Fig.122.[71]Tofollowupthesestudieswell,itwillbedesirabletohaveanintroductiontotheauthorities,

whichmayexemptyoufromagallingsystemofespionageformanyyearsprevalentinthiscathedral.(G.G.S.1878.)

[72]SeeLectureV.,Fig.113.[73]SeeLectureXII.,vol.ii.[74]SeeLectureXIV.,vol.ii.[75]SeeLectureIII.,Fig.79;andLectureV.,Fig.110.[76]SeeLectureV.,p.320,Fig.115;also“DigressionconcerningWindows” insertedbetween

LecturesVII.andVIII.[77]Itismelancholytothinkhowourprivilegesareneglected!TheArchitecturalMuseumitself

isaperfectmineofthefinestobjectsofstudy;yethowinsufficientaretheusesmadeofit.(G.G.S.1878.)

[78]SinceIwrote this—elevenyearsago—thetidehas turned.Weare tooapt tofollowragesandmere fashions.Wewere, when I wrote, becoming too French; we have since got to think ofFrencharchitecturewithaself-righteoushorror.(G.G.S.1878.)

[79]Forillustrations,seeLectureIII.,p.82,Figs.20,21.[80]ManyoriginalcapitalsfromtheSainteChapellearelyingintheopenairinthegardensof

theHôtelCluny.Themostpreciousmorselswhichcanbeconceived!(G.G.S.1878.)[81]When I wrote this, they were double-locked in the old schatzzimmer, but they are now

displayedinthetriforiumgallery.(G.G.S.1878.)[82] Imean theRomanesquearchitectureofLombardy: not thatof theLombardKings,which

wasprobablyamereversionoftheBasilican.SeenoteonthissubjecttoLectureI.(G.G.S.1878).[83] The small secularBasilica, called the “Basilica Jovis” built, I think, byDomitian on the

Palatine Hill, proves more clearly than any other building I know how directly our churches arederivedfromtheoldHallsofJustice.Therecentexcavationshaveshownboth themarblecancelliwhichpartedofftheapse,andthealtarwithinitfortheadministrativeoath.(G.G.S.1878.)

[84]Surelywemayclaimitnow!(G.G.S.1878.)[85]Forillustrations,seeLectureV.p.199,Fig.121.[86]Forillustration,see“DigressionconcerningWindows,”insertedbetweenLecturesVII.and

VIII.[87]Sorapidlydofashionschangethat,thoughwhenIwrotetheaboveIexpectedtobefound

faultwithforspeakingsowelloflatestyles,Iamnowfarbehindtheage!SixteenyearsearlierIhaddonethesameattherisk,nay,withthecertainty,ofbeingpronouncedahereticbysomeoftheverypersonswhonowthinkthelatestMediævalartthebest,andthatfarlaterthanMediævalbetterstill.(G.G.S.1878.)

[88]Thosewhomostdespisedthelessforeignandthelessearlymen,are,inmanycases,thosewho have subsequently rejected all thatwas foreign, and all thatwas early; if not yet, all that isMediæval.(G.G.S.1878.)

[89]Ifearmyloveoftheearlystyleshasledmetobeunfaithfultomytheory.(G.G.S.1878.)[90]TheFrenchvarietyofourstylehasnotonlybeenvulgarisedbyexaggeration,butstillmore

byignoranceandincapacity.ThehideousnessofthecapitalsconstantlypalmedoffasFrenchwould

surpassbeliefifwewerenotusedtoit!(G.G.S.1878.)[91] Imustmention, as noble exceptions to this, the restoration, byMr.Hardman, of the east

window of Okeover Church, Derbyshire; and of two windows in the north aisle of GloucesterCathedral,whichareworksdeservingthehighestpraise.(G.G.S.)

[92] I fear this termonlyapplies tohim in respectofhis liberality in thisparticular. (G.G.S.1878.)

[93]Icannotbutfeelthatourglasspaintersfailgrievouslyinrealprogress.Eventhosewhoarereally acquainted with their art too frequently so scamper over it as to render their figures andsubjectsmere caricatures. The majority really know nothing about their art, and these are thefavouriteswiththepublic!Anothersection,whoreallyunderstandwhatartis,andareabletopractiseit,proudlysetatnaughtitsharmonywiththearchitectureinwhichitisset.(G.G.S.1878.)

[94] If the local and other architects who feel themselves to be open to this charge wouldreconsidertheirways,anddeterminehenceforthtodevotethemselvestotheconservationofalltheantiquitieswhichpassthroughtheirhands,theywouldearnandreceivetheheartysupportofallwholoveandvalueourancientbuildings,aswellassecuringthegratitudeoffuturegenerations.(G.G.S.)

EndoftheProjectGutenbergEBookofLecturesontheriseanddevelopment

ofmediaevalarchitecture;vol.1,byGilbertScott

***ENDOFTHISPROJECTGUTENBERGEBOOKLECTURES***

*****Thisfileshouldbenamed61255-h.htmor61255-h.zip*****

Thisandallassociatedfilesofvariousformatswillbefoundin:

http://www.gutenberg.org/6/1/2/5/61255/

ProducedbyChuckGreifandtheOnlineDistributed

ProofreadingTeamathttp://www.pgdp.net(Thisfilewas

producedfromimagesavailableatTheInternetArchive)

Updatededitionswillreplacethepreviousone--theoldeditions

willberenamed.

Creatingtheworksfrompublicdomainprinteditionsmeansthatno

oneownsaUnitedStatescopyrightintheseworks,sotheFoundation

(andyou!)cancopyanddistributeitintheUnitedStateswithout

permissionandwithoutpayingcopyrightroyalties.Specialrules,

setforthintheGeneralTermsofUsepartofthislicense,applyto

copyinganddistributingProjectGutenberg-tmelectronicworksto

protectthePROJECTGUTENBERG-tmconceptandtrademark.Project

Gutenbergisaregisteredtrademark,andmaynotbeusedifyou

chargefortheeBooks,unlessyoureceivespecificpermission.Ifyou

donotchargeanythingforcopiesofthiseBook,complyingwiththe

rulesisveryeasy.YoumayusethiseBookfornearlyanypurpose

suchascreationofderivativeworks,reports,performancesand

research.Theymaybemodifiedandprintedandgivenaway--youmaydo

practicallyANYTHINGwithpublicdomaineBooks.Redistributionis

subjecttothetrademarklicense,especiallycommercial

redistribution.

***START:FULLLICENSE***

THEFULLPROJECTGUTENBERGLICENSE

PLEASEREADTHISBEFOREYOUDISTRIBUTEORUSETHISWORK

ToprotecttheProjectGutenberg-tmmissionofpromotingthefree

distributionofelectronicworks,byusingordistributingthiswork

(oranyotherworkassociatedinanywaywiththephrase"Project

Gutenberg"),youagreetocomplywithallthetermsoftheFullProject

Gutenberg-tmLicense(availablewiththisfileoronlineat

http://gutenberg.org/license).

Section1.GeneralTermsofUseandRedistributingProjectGutenberg-tm

electronicworks

1.A.ByreadingorusinganypartofthisProjectGutenberg-tm

electronicwork,youindicatethatyouhaveread,understand,agreeto

andacceptallthetermsofthislicenseandintellectualproperty

(trademark/copyright)agreement.Ifyoudonotagreetoabidebyall

thetermsofthisagreement,youmustceaseusingandreturnordestroy

allcopiesofProjectGutenberg-tmelectronicworksinyourpossession.

IfyoupaidafeeforobtainingacopyoforaccesstoaProject

Gutenberg-tmelectronicworkandyoudonotagreetobeboundbythe

termsofthisagreement,youmayobtainarefundfromthepersonor

entitytowhomyoupaidthefeeassetforthinparagraph1.E.8.

1.B."ProjectGutenberg"isaregisteredtrademark.Itmayonlybe

usedonorassociatedinanywaywithanelectronicworkbypeoplewho

agreetobeboundbythetermsofthisagreement.Thereareafew

thingsthatyoucandowithmostProjectGutenberg-tmelectronicworks

evenwithoutcomplyingwiththefulltermsofthisagreement.See

paragraph1.Cbelow.TherearealotofthingsyoucandowithProject

Gutenberg-tmelectronicworksifyoufollowthetermsofthisagreement

andhelppreservefreefutureaccesstoProjectGutenberg-tmelectronic

works.Seeparagraph1.Ebelow.

1.C.TheProjectGutenbergLiteraryArchiveFoundation("theFoundation"

orPGLAF),ownsacompilationcopyrightinthecollectionofProject

Gutenberg-tmelectronicworks.Nearlyalltheindividualworksinthe

collectionareinthepublicdomainintheUnitedStates.Ifan

individualworkisinthepublicdomainintheUnitedStatesandyouare

locatedintheUnitedStates,wedonotclaimarighttopreventyoufrom

copying,distributing,performing,displayingorcreatingderivative

worksbasedontheworkaslongasallreferencestoProjectGutenberg

areremoved.Ofcourse,wehopethatyouwillsupporttheProject

Gutenberg-tmmissionofpromotingfreeaccesstoelectronicworksby

freelysharingProjectGutenberg-tmworksincompliancewiththetermsof

thisagreementforkeepingtheProjectGutenberg-tmnameassociatedwith

thework.Youcaneasilycomplywiththetermsofthisagreementby

keepingthisworkinthesameformatwithitsattachedfullProject

Gutenberg-tmLicensewhenyoushareitwithoutchargewithothers.

1.D.Thecopyrightlawsoftheplacewhereyouarelocatedalsogovern

whatyoucandowiththiswork.Copyrightlawsinmostcountriesarein

aconstantstateofchange.IfyouareoutsidetheUnitedStates,check

thelawsofyourcountryinadditiontothetermsofthisagreement

beforedownloading,copying,displaying,performing,distributingor

creatingderivativeworksbasedonthisworkoranyotherProject

Gutenberg-tmwork.TheFoundationmakesnorepresentationsconcerning

thecopyrightstatusofanyworkinanycountryoutsidetheUnited

States.

1.E.UnlessyouhaveremovedallreferencestoProjectGutenberg:

1.E.1.Thefollowingsentence,withactivelinksto,orotherimmediate

accessto,thefullProjectGutenberg-tmLicensemustappearprominently

wheneveranycopyofaProjectGutenberg-tmwork(anyworkonwhichthe

phrase"ProjectGutenberg"appears,orwithwhichthephrase"Project

Gutenberg"isassociated)isaccessed,displayed,performed,viewed,

copiedordistributed:

ThiseBookisfortheuseofanyoneanywhereatnocostandwith

almostnorestrictionswhatsoever.Youmaycopyit,giveitawayor

re-useitunderthetermsoftheProjectGutenbergLicenseincluded

withthiseBookoronlineatwww.gutenberg.org/license

1.E.2.IfanindividualProjectGutenberg-tmelectronicworkisderived

fromthepublicdomain(doesnotcontainanoticeindicatingthatitis

postedwithpermissionofthecopyrightholder),theworkcanbecopied

anddistributedtoanyoneintheUnitedStateswithoutpayinganyfees

orcharges.Ifyouareredistributingorprovidingaccesstoawork

withthephrase"ProjectGutenberg"associatedwithorappearingonthe

work,youmustcomplyeitherwiththerequirementsofparagraphs1.E.1

through1.E.7orobtainpermissionfortheuseoftheworkandthe

ProjectGutenberg-tmtrademarkassetforthinparagraphs1.E.8or

1.E.9.

1.E.3.IfanindividualProjectGutenberg-tmelectronicworkisposted

withthepermissionofthecopyrightholder,youruseanddistribution

mustcomplywithbothparagraphs1.E.1through1.E.7andanyadditional

termsimposedbythecopyrightholder.Additionaltermswillbelinked

totheProjectGutenberg-tmLicenseforallworkspostedwiththe

permissionofthecopyrightholderfoundatthebeginningofthiswork.

1.E.4.DonotunlinkordetachorremovethefullProjectGutenberg-tm

Licensetermsfromthiswork,oranyfilescontainingapartofthis

workoranyotherworkassociatedwithProjectGutenberg-tm.

1.E.5.Donotcopy,display,perform,distributeorredistributethis

electronicwork,oranypartofthiselectronicwork,without

prominentlydisplayingthesentencesetforthinparagraph1.E.1with

activelinksorimmediateaccesstothefulltermsoftheProject

Gutenberg-tmLicense.

1.E.6.Youmayconverttoanddistributethisworkinanybinary,

compressed,markedup,nonproprietaryorproprietaryform,includingany

wordprocessingorhypertextform.However,ifyouprovideaccesstoor

distributecopiesofaProjectGutenberg-tmworkinaformatotherthan

"PlainVanillaASCII"orotherformatusedintheofficialversion

postedontheofficialProjectGutenberg-tmwebsite(www.gutenberg.org),

youmust,atnoadditionalcost,feeorexpensetotheuser,providea

copy,ameansofexportingacopy,orameansofobtainingacopyupon

request,oftheworkinitsoriginal"PlainVanillaASCII"orother

form.AnyalternateformatmustincludethefullProjectGutenberg-tm

Licenseasspecifiedinparagraph1.E.1.

1.E.7.Donotchargeafeeforaccessto,viewing,displaying,

performing,copyingordistributinganyProjectGutenberg-tmworks

unlessyoucomplywithparagraph1.E.8or1.E.9.

1.E.8.Youmaychargeareasonablefeeforcopiesoforproviding

accesstoordistributingProjectGutenberg-tmelectronicworksprovided

that

-Youpayaroyaltyfeeof20%ofthegrossprofitsyouderivefrom

theuseofProjectGutenberg-tmworkscalculatedusingthemethod

youalreadyusetocalculateyourapplicabletaxes.Thefeeis

owedtotheowneroftheProjectGutenberg-tmtrademark,buthe

hasagreedtodonateroyaltiesunderthisparagraphtothe

ProjectGutenbergLiteraryArchiveFoundation.Royaltypayments

mustbepaidwithin60daysfollowingeachdateonwhichyou

prepare(orarelegallyrequiredtoprepare)yourperiodictax

returns.Royaltypaymentsshouldbeclearlymarkedassuchand

senttotheProjectGutenbergLiteraryArchiveFoundationatthe

addressspecifiedinSection4,"Informationaboutdonationsto

theProjectGutenbergLiteraryArchiveFoundation."

-Youprovideafullrefundofanymoneypaidbyauserwhonotifies

youinwriting(orbye-mail)within30daysofreceiptthats/he

doesnotagreetothetermsofthefullProjectGutenberg-tm

License.Youmustrequiresuchausertoreturnor

destroyallcopiesoftheworkspossessedinaphysicalmedium

anddiscontinuealluseofandallaccesstoothercopiesof

ProjectGutenberg-tmworks.

-Youprovide,inaccordancewithparagraph1.F.3,afullrefundofany

moneypaidforaworkorareplacementcopy,ifadefectinthe

electronicworkisdiscoveredandreportedtoyouwithin90days

ofreceiptofthework.

-Youcomplywithallothertermsofthisagreementforfree

distributionofProjectGutenberg-tmworks.

1.E.9.IfyouwishtochargeafeeordistributeaProjectGutenberg-tm

electronicworkorgroupofworksondifferenttermsthanareset

forthinthisagreement,youmustobtainpermissioninwritingfrom

boththeProjectGutenbergLiteraryArchiveFoundationandMichael

Hart,theowneroftheProjectGutenberg-tmtrademark.Contactthe

FoundationassetforthinSection3below.

1.F.

1.F.1.ProjectGutenbergvolunteersandemployeesexpendconsiderable

efforttoidentify,docopyrightresearchon,transcribeandproofread

publicdomainworksincreatingtheProjectGutenberg-tm

collection.Despitetheseefforts,ProjectGutenberg-tmelectronic

works,andthemediumonwhichtheymaybestored,maycontain

"Defects,"suchas,butnotlimitedto,incomplete,inaccurateor

corruptdata,transcriptionerrors,acopyrightorotherintellectual

propertyinfringement,adefectiveordamageddiskorothermedium,a

computervirus,orcomputercodesthatdamageorcannotbereadby

yourequipment.

1.F.2.LIMITEDWARRANTY,DISCLAIMEROFDAMAGES-Exceptforthe"Right

ofReplacementorRefund"describedinparagraph1.F.3,theProject

GutenbergLiteraryArchiveFoundation,theowneroftheProject

Gutenberg-tmtrademark,andanyotherpartydistributingaProject

Gutenberg-tmelectronicworkunderthisagreement,disclaimall

liabilitytoyoufordamages,costsandexpenses,includinglegal

fees.YOUAGREETHATYOUHAVENOREMEDIESFORNEGLIGENCE,STRICT

LIABILITY,BREACHOFWARRANTYORBREACHOFCONTRACTEXCEPTTHOSE

PROVIDEDINPARAGRAPH1.F.3.YOUAGREETHATTHEFOUNDATION,THE

TRADEMARKOWNER,ANDANYDISTRIBUTORUNDERTHISAGREEMENTWILLNOTBE

LIABLETOYOUFORACTUAL,DIRECT,INDIRECT,CONSEQUENTIAL,PUNITIVEOR

INCIDENTALDAMAGESEVENIFYOUGIVENOTICEOFTHEPOSSIBILITYOFSUCH

DAMAGE.

1.F.3.LIMITEDRIGHTOFREPLACEMENTORREFUND-Ifyoudiscovera

defectinthiselectronicworkwithin90daysofreceivingit,youcan

receivearefundofthemoney(ifany)youpaidforitbysendinga

writtenexplanationtothepersonyoureceivedtheworkfrom.Ifyou

receivedtheworkonaphysicalmedium,youmustreturnthemediumwith

yourwrittenexplanation.Thepersonorentitythatprovidedyouwith

thedefectiveworkmayelecttoprovideareplacementcopyinlieuofa

refund.Ifyoureceivedtheworkelectronically,thepersonorentity

providingittoyoumaychoosetogiveyouasecondopportunityto

receivetheworkelectronicallyinlieuofarefund.Ifthesecondcopy

isalsodefective,youmaydemandarefundinwritingwithoutfurther

opportunitiestofixtheproblem.

1.F.4.Exceptforthelimitedrightofreplacementorrefundsetforth

inparagraph1.F.3,thisworkisprovidedtoyou'AS-IS'WITHNOOTHER

WARRANTIESOFANYKIND,EXPRESSORIMPLIED,INCLUDINGBUTNOTLIMITEDTO

WARRANTIESOFMERCHANTABILITYORFITNESSFORANYPURPOSE.

1.F.5.Somestatesdonotallowdisclaimersofcertainimplied

warrantiesortheexclusionorlimitationofcertaintypesofdamages.

Ifanydisclaimerorlimitationsetforthinthisagreementviolatesthe

lawofthestateapplicabletothisagreement,theagreementshallbe

interpretedtomakethemaximumdisclaimerorlimitationpermittedby

theapplicablestatelaw.Theinvalidityorunenforceabilityofany

provisionofthisagreementshallnotvoidtheremainingprovisions.

1.F.6.INDEMNITY-YouagreetoindemnifyandholdtheFoundation,the

trademarkowner,anyagentoremployeeoftheFoundation,anyone

providingcopiesofProjectGutenberg-tmelectronicworksinaccordance

withthisagreement,andanyvolunteersassociatedwiththeproduction,

promotionanddistributionofProjectGutenberg-tmelectronicworks,

harmlessfromallliability,costsandexpenses,includinglegalfees,

thatarisedirectlyorindirectlyfromanyofthefollowingwhichyoudo

orcausetooccur:(a)distributionofthisoranyProjectGutenberg-tm

work,(b)alteration,modification,oradditionsordeletionstoany

ProjectGutenberg-tmwork,and(c)anyDefectyoucause.

Section2.InformationabouttheMissionofProjectGutenberg-tm

ProjectGutenberg-tmissynonymouswiththefreedistributionof

electronicworksinformatsreadablebythewidestvarietyofcomputers

includingobsolete,old,middle-agedandnewcomputers.Itexists

becauseoftheeffortsofhundredsofvolunteersanddonationsfrom

peopleinallwalksoflife.

Volunteersandfinancialsupporttoprovidevolunteerswiththe

assistancetheyneed,arecriticaltoreachingProjectGutenberg-tm's

goalsandensuringthattheProjectGutenberg-tmcollectionwill

remainfreelyavailableforgenerationstocome.In2001,theProject

GutenbergLiteraryArchiveFoundationwascreatedtoprovideasecure

andpermanentfutureforProjectGutenberg-tmandfuturegenerations.

TolearnmoreabouttheProjectGutenbergLiteraryArchiveFoundation

andhowyoureffortsanddonationscanhelp,seeSections3and4

andtheFoundationwebpageathttp://www.pglaf.org.

Section3.InformationabouttheProjectGutenbergLiteraryArchive

Foundation

TheProjectGutenbergLiteraryArchiveFoundationisanonprofit

501(c)(3)educationalcorporationorganizedunderthelawsofthe

stateofMississippiandgrantedtaxexemptstatusbytheInternal

RevenueService.TheFoundation'sEINorfederaltaxidentification

numberis64-6221541.Its501(c)(3)letterispostedat

http://pglaf.org/fundraising.ContributionstotheProjectGutenberg

LiteraryArchiveFoundationaretaxdeductibletothefullextent

permittedbyU.S.federallawsandyourstate'slaws.

TheFoundation'sprincipalofficeislocatedat4557MelanDr.S.

Fairbanks,AK,99712.,butitsvolunteersandemployeesarescattered

throughoutnumerouslocations.Itsbusinessofficeislocatedat

809North1500West,SaltLakeCity,UT84116,(801)596-1887,email

business@pglaf.org.Emailcontactlinksanduptodatecontact

informationcanbefoundattheFoundation'swebsiteandofficial

pageathttp://pglaf.org

Foradditionalcontactinformation:

Dr.GregoryB.Newby

ChiefExecutiveandDirector

gbnewby@pglaf.org

Section4.InformationaboutDonationstotheProjectGutenberg

LiteraryArchiveFoundation

ProjectGutenberg-tmdependsuponandcannotsurvivewithoutwide

spreadpublicsupportanddonationstocarryoutitsmissionof

increasingthenumberofpublicdomainandlicensedworksthatcanbe

freelydistributedinmachinereadableformaccessiblebythewidest

arrayofequipmentincludingoutdatedequipment.Manysmalldonations

($1to$5,000)areparticularlyimportanttomaintainingtaxexempt

statuswiththeIRS.

TheFoundationiscommittedtocomplyingwiththelawsregulating

charitiesandcharitabledonationsinall50statesoftheUnited

States.Compliancerequirementsarenotuniformandittakesa

considerableeffort,muchpaperworkandmanyfeestomeetandkeepup

withtheserequirements.Wedonotsolicitdonationsinlocations

wherewehavenotreceivedwrittenconfirmationofcompliance.To

SENDDONATIONSordeterminethestatusofcomplianceforany

particularstatevisithttp://pglaf.org

Whilewecannotanddonotsolicitcontributionsfromstateswherewe

havenotmetthesolicitationrequirements,weknowofnoprohibition

againstacceptingunsoliciteddonationsfromdonorsinsuchstateswho

approachuswithofferstodonate.

Internationaldonationsaregratefullyaccepted,butwecannotmake

anystatementsconcerningtaxtreatmentofdonationsreceivedfrom

outsidetheUnitedStates.U.S.lawsaloneswampoursmallstaff.

PleasechecktheProjectGutenbergWebpagesforcurrentdonation

methodsandaddresses.Donationsareacceptedinanumberofother

waysincludingchecks,onlinepaymentsandcreditcarddonations.

Todonate,pleasevisit:http://pglaf.org/donate

Section5.GeneralInformationAboutProjectGutenberg-tmelectronic

works.

ProfessorMichaelS.HartistheoriginatoroftheProjectGutenberg-tm

conceptofalibraryofelectronicworksthatcouldbefreelyshared

withanyone.Forthirtyyears,heproducedanddistributedProject

Gutenberg-tmeBookswithonlyaloosenetworkofvolunteersupport.

ProjectGutenberg-tmeBooksareoftencreatedfromseveralprinted

editions,allofwhichareconfirmedasPublicDomainintheU.S.

unlessacopyrightnoticeisincluded.Thus,wedonotnecessarily

keepeBooksincompliancewithanyparticularpaperedition.

MostpeoplestartatourWebsitewhichhasthemainPGsearchfacility:

http://www.gutenberg.org

ThisWebsiteincludesinformationaboutProjectGutenberg-tm,

includinghowtomakedonationstotheProjectGutenbergLiterary

ArchiveFoundation,howtohelpproduceourneweBooks,andhowto

subscribetoouremailnewslettertohearaboutneweBooks.

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback

linkedimageback