l'!4rt.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



225 



THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF MEDIEVAL 

 ARCHITECTURE. 



Modern ecclesiology is the revived study of a neglected branch of human 

 knowledge; and like all similar revivals compensates for previous neglect 

 by present enthusiasm. It is by no means an uncommon occurrence in the 

 history of literature and art that a zeal for reproduction and servile 

 imitation should suddenly spring up which threatens, at first, to destroy 

 not only all hope, but even all desire of originality. 



These indications, so prejudicial to the true interests of art are however 

 transitory — at least they have always hitherto proved so, as far as we are 

 acquainted with intellectual history, and we may safely hope that they will 

 be 30 with respect to the modern study of Mediicval architecture. While 

 the first impulse and freshness of the novel pursuit lasts, all attempt to gain 

 a characteristic individuality is sacrificed to an unthinking and undiscrimi- 

 Dating admiration of the ancient models; but after a while the votaries of 

 the new science become weary (and perhaps a little ashamed) of being 

 mere copyists, they find for the first time that all the features of their idol 

 are not admirable alike, that some parts are far more worthy of study than 

 others, and then finally, if they themselves possess creative power, adopt 

 those parts, not as patterns, but as so many hints — way-marks, as it were — 

 of the direction in which their own genius may most successfully pursue 

 its course. Just in the same way— the greatest orators, writers, sculptors, 

 and painters have been content to be for a time disciples of ancient masters, 

 in order that they might form their own style on the classical models, of 

 which their creative genius forbad them from copying the actual ideas or 

 modes of expression. 



In accordance with these considerations it becomes a matter of great 

 practical importance to ascertain exactly the degree and nature of the ad- 

 miration with which we should regard Mediaeval art, to discriminate be- 

 tween its merits and defects, and above all to determine which of its nume- 

 rous varieties or styles are most worthy of being studied with a view to 

 further development. We by no means claim the merit of originating this 

 investigation, it has already been pursued to a considerable extent by others, 

 although the conclusions at which they have arrived are extremely various. 



One class of writers, who represent a considerable portion of the English 

 students of Jlediaeval architecture, recommend the exclusive adoption of 

 the second great style of Pointed Architecture, commonly known as the 

 Decorated, which, to use their own peculiar mode of expression, " is the 

 style of Pointed Architecture which we consider to have the mo.st nearly 

 approached perfection, or, as we should more truly say, the furthest de- 

 parted from imperfection. It was but an approach, and but for an instant. 

 It just unveiled to men a distant glimpse of heavenly things and dazzled 

 his [their] poor eyes with that imperfect vision." Another class of writers 

 describe Perpendicular as the most perfect style of Pointed Architecture, 

 but recommend Romanesque for exclusive adoption in building new 

 churches, as being the most suitable for modern purposes. 



These contending opinions represent, we believe, with tolerable accuracy 

 the respective views of two bodies who have rendered themselves cele- 

 brated by the zeal with which they pursue the study of church architec- 

 ture — the Oxford Architectural Society, and the Cambridge Camden or 

 Ecclesiological Society; and seeing, as it is impossible not to see, that 

 these ^two bodies have promulgated, among much which is inconsistent, 

 and much which is controvertible, a large mass of sound and valuable in- 

 formation respecting Pointed architecture, it is useless to treat their opi- 

 nions with indifference. 



We are very anxious to contribute to the attainment of a sound conclu- 

 sion as to which of the styles of Mediaeval architecture should be preferred 

 but in stating the views and arguments of the two Academical bodies men- 

 tioned, we are met by this difficulty, that the discussion has been made to 

 assume a theological character, which renders it in a great measure un- 

 suitable for these pages. The advocates of one or other of the various 

 styles of Mediaeval architecture do not rest the claims of either merely on 

 its intrinsic beauty or constructive value, but chiefly on its typical refe- 

 rence, or supposed reference to religious doctrines. For the completeness 

 of our argument it will be necessary to allude in general terms to the latter 

 class of argu ments, and show that even if we allow to them the weigh t gi veu 

 by their authors, they are still so nearly balanced as to leaye the main 

 (juestion unaiTected. 



Ho. 107.— Vol. IX.— -Ac6dst, 1346. 



It is indisputable that during the middle ages there was a tendency to 

 establish resemblances between material forms and abstract ideas. This 

 tendency may probably have arisen from the prevalence of monastic insti- 

 tutions; for in the vacuity of thought unavoidable in a state of monotonous 

 seclusion, the mind must either be occupied by some fanciful unreal em- 

 ployments, or become enfeebled by pure inaction. (.And it may be remarked 

 in passing that this consideration is a reasonable explanation of the fact 

 that symbolic speculations are in our times most rife among academical 

 and cathedral bodies, wherein the manner of life most nearly resembles 

 ancient monachism.) These speculations were anciently applied to all the 

 sciences — chemistry was neglected for alchemy, astronomy for astrology. 

 The study of botany became a mere collection of comparisons between 

 Bowers and church festivals— the snow drop and Candlemas, the daffodil 

 and the Annunciation, the ranunculus and the Invention of the Cross, the 

 white lily and the Visitation of our Lady, Skc, the passion flower being 

 however the favourite subject of this species of mental indulgence. To 

 the same source must be attributed the cabalastic interpretation of myste- 

 rious numbers, and lines on the human hand, the black art and the whole 

 cycle of occult sciences. The whole material and intellectual world were 

 arranged in a universal system of type and antitype ; and all things visible 

 were supposed capable of a recondite symbolic interpretation. The Ger- 

 mans in modern times have somewhat refined on this method of doublg- 

 signification by their system of esoteric and esoteric ideas, that is, in sim- 

 ple English — the system of saying one thing and meaning another. 



It is easy to suppose that in the Mediaeval times the love of syuibuli«m 

 would be frequently exhibited in architecture, and as a matter of fact thers 

 is no doubt that it frequeally was so exhibited. For to what other cause 

 can we assign the cruciformity of churches, the position of the foot near 

 the entrance, and orientation or the position of the chancel at the eastern 

 end ? Occasionally the symbolism seems to have been carried into minute 

 particulars, and atibrds a curious reflex of the mind of the architect, for it 

 is generally observable that where these indications of trivial resemblances 

 exist, the architecture is of a feeble character, and does not exhibit that 

 boldness and vigour of conception which belong to a vigorous mascuUn* 

 intellect. 



But that symbolism of every kind, whether minute or general, depended 

 on the individual caprice of the architect, and not upon any accepted lavr 

 of church architecture, is evident from the partial manner in which it in 

 exhibited. Taking all Christendom through, the number of churches with 

 cross transepts is far exceeded by those of which the plan is rectangular 

 or irregular. In the same way the orientation has been as frequently dis- 

 regarded as observed ; in continental churches especially, the disregard of 

 orientation was so great that in one church the chancel is sometimes nearly 

 opposite in direction to the chancel in a neighbouring church. Of the 

 position of fonts it is not so easy to speak, because, being moved with 

 tolerable facility, they have been frequently displaced from their original 

 situation. Another architectural form, which has been supposed to bear 

 an obvious symbolic meaning, the eastern triplet window, is by no means 

 of universal occurrence: in every successive style of church architecture 

 there are numerous examples of other kinds of windows at the east end of 

 the church. And it is important to observe also that the Mediaeval archi- 

 tects were by no means jealous of restricting to ecclesiastical uses the 

 forms which are capable of a symbolic interpretation, for the triplet window 

 is commonly found in edifices constructed for secular purposes. 



That the general affectation of analogies and fanciful conceits wbich 

 prevailed in the middle ages should be occasionally displayed in architec- 

 ture was naturally to be expected — that it should be universally displayed 

 was practically impossible. And this reason, if no other existed, would 

 have sufSced to prevent symbolism becoming a positive law of church 

 building. If for instance it had been determined that one essential re- 

 quisite in the construction of a church was that the plan of the building 

 should typify the doctrine of the Cross, if this kind of teaching were cod. 

 sidered a religious necessity, then it is evident that a church without tran- 

 septs must exhibit some other kind of teaching, that it must inculcate a 

 heresy, and that the worshippers in it must be heretics. It would how- 

 ever be frequently necessary to build churches where it was physically 

 impossible that the plan should be cruciform. This necessity alone would 

 prevent symbolism from assuming the sanction of universal custom ; for it 

 is to be observed, greatly to the credit of the Medieval architects, that 

 they never sacrificed real palpable advantages for the gratification of their 



29 



