228 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



[AUGUST» 



of imperfect knowledge of construclion. Had the Normans possessed the 

 constructional skill of later architect?, had their knowledge of mechanics 

 enabled them to construct a spire wilji the magical appearance of lightness 

 which belongs to the Strasburg spire, they would certainly have availed 

 themselves of that knowledge. Modern ecclesiologists tell us that the 

 Normans built massively and imperfectly, because their mode of contruc- 

 tion typilied the slate of the church in their own times. The reason which 

 we sliouhl assign is far too simple and unsophisticated to find much favour 

 iu the Universities, but we are disposed to think that if ihe Normans did 

 Dot build with the symmetry and graceful proportions which distinguish 

 later architects, it was simply because they could not. 



Uomanesque, like all mixed architecture (cinque cento for instance) 

 abounds in surface decorations. For the reason of this circumstance we 

 need not look far. A style which combines incongruous modes of con- 

 struction must aflTord means for masking the inconsistency : and accord- 

 ingly we find in Italian and Romanesque, and every other impure kind of 

 archileclure, that the construction is never clearly exhibited, the decora- 

 tions do not arise naturally from the constructive arrangements, and that 

 the architect is compelled to resort to surface ornaments as alternative ex- 

 pedients for producing variety. The arches of decoration which characterise 

 Romanesque towers, ice. are examples of these inconslructive ornaments. 



A practical objection to the general adoption of Romanesque — an objec- 

 tion which perhaps will weigh more with the professional than the amateur 

 architect — is that it is a very expensive style. The modern kickshaw 

 Romanesque structures with thin walls and slender pillars are not very 

 costly ; but we speak here of real Romanesque — not of a mongrel architec- 

 ture which mimics the details of that style without possessing the least 

 - portion of its spirit. The characteristic solidity and massiveness of Ro- 

 manesque masonry can seldom be reproduced in modern times. Besides, 

 it is poor alTectation to copy defects — to return to imperfect modes of con- 

 struction when we possess more perfect modes. 



The advocates of Decorated architecture are not quite so exclusive as 

 the advocates of Romanesque. It is true that the former usually condemn 

 new churches built in any style but their favourite one; they admit how- 

 ever the merits of other styles. " Willi t be maintained," say they, " that 

 though Middle Pointed be as a whole more perfect than First Pointed, 

 yet that there are not parts and details in the latter more perfect than in 

 the former, and that it is primA facie clear that there can be no absolute 

 impossibility in engrafting them upon Middle Pointed? Therefore any 

 style which shall combine them with the mass of Middle Pointed must be 

 a more perfect form of architecture than has yet been produced. We ad- 

 mire the smooth flowing delicate sweep of a Middle Pointed moulding, 

 still we cannot but desiderate the wonderful boldness, the solemn depth of 



light and shade in a mass of First Pointed mouldings Again, 



we will be bold to say, why should not back surfaces and splays display 

 that prodigal variety of surface ornament which is the di=tinguishing em- 

 bellishment of Romanesque?" 



This question appears to us capable of a satisfactory answer. The at- 

 tempt to combine twodifTerent styles has always failed — always will fail— 

 because it destroys the individuality of both. This necessity of character- 

 istic physiognomy is quite independent of intrinsic beauty, and is much 

 overlooked in modern art. The artist who endeavours to give a water- 

 colour painting the effect of oil colours — the musician who would impart 

 to the violin the peculiar ictus of the piano or intonation of the organ — the 

 sculptor who by piercing the eyes of his statues borrows the efl'ects of 

 colour, entertains, we hold, defective notions of the true purposes of art. 

 Kach of these combinations is made at the sacrifice, so to speak, of identity. 

 The mixed result instead of preserving the merits of both its archetypes 

 usually injures both. 



To view the subject historically — had not the architects of the Decorated 

 Period fully as many opportunities of combining with their own architec- 

 ture, the characteristics of the previous period as we have? The very fact 

 that they did not avail themselves of these opportunities is a strong pre- 

 sumptive argument against the expediency of making the attempt now. 

 We see, as the second great style of Mediieval architecture approached 

 perfection, the characteristics of the first style, one after another, volun- 

 tarily relinquished. The deep undercut mouldings of Early English, the 

 exquisite lancet windows with detached shafts, &c., fell into disuse. Can 

 we imagine that men who fliowed such a thorough appreciation of the 

 beautiful as did the architects of the Decorated period, would have given up 

 forms of so much beauty wantonly, and without they had entertained a 

 lixed purpose for which those forms were incompatible? If we examine 

 au Early English church or a Decorated church separately, we shall find 



that the details of each are exactly consistent with Ihe general character of 

 the building. And this observation applies not only to the actual forms 

 but the modes iu v\hich those forms are applied. In Early English some 

 parts are elaborately ornamented, which in Decorated were left plain. It 

 is diflicult to explain these characteristics by verbal description, but we 

 feel convinced that the architectural reader who has become familiar with 

 them, by actual observation, will bear us out in the assertion that the cha- 

 racter of each style so thoroughly prevades every portion of it, and is so 

 strongly marked in its minutest details, that the attempt to transfer parts 

 of one style to another must produce coufusioo. 



This unsatisfactory result may be partially traced in the transition styles 

 of each period. It cannot be denied that the monuments of transition ar- 

 chitecture are usually very interesting, and that their prodigal display of 

 rich embellishments elicits the highest admiration. But these buildings 

 seldom have a distinct character of their own. They are, as it were, bor- 

 derers on the confines of two countries, and exhibit some of the good and 

 bad qualities of both, without possessing the nationality of either. 



The remainder of our space must be devoted to the defence of Perpen- 

 dicular architecture from the obloquy to which it has been subjected. 

 The principal objection urged against this style is that it is not symbolic. 

 We do not consider it necessary to resume the discussion ; we shall merely 

 make one observation with respect to the absence of the Triforium.. The 

 symbolists protest against the disuse of a feature which, with the clerestory 

 above and the arcade below it, constitutes the triplicity which they love to 

 trace in every part of a sacred edifice. To ourselves, however, a sufficient 

 argument against the re-adoption of Triforia is that they are useless. In 

 the unreformed Church they appear to have served as galleries from which 

 were hung draperies on high festivals. It is clear that they could never 

 be applied to such purposes in modern English churches, and it must or 

 ought to follow thence, that all who advocate faithfulness in architecture 

 must object to the introduction of members which are not merely useless 

 but fictitious also, from assuming au appearance of utility which dues not 

 really belong to them. 



The objection that the mullions of Perpendicular windows are incon- 

 structive has but little weight, for it applies to all mullions whatever, 

 whether they meet the soflit of the arch vertically or obliquely. Any one 

 who is acquainted with the mechanical properties of an arch knows that 

 it ought to be supported on its abutments only — that it does not require 

 support from intermediate props. If, then, such props be applied either 

 by the vertical mullions of Perpendicular windows or by the curved 

 tracery of Decorated windows, these additional members are alike incon- 

 structive; and quoad hoc the Lancet style is more constructive than either 

 of the other two. But it would be impossible to fetter art by these minute 

 restrictions. If a comparison be established between two styles to ascer- 

 tain which is the most constructional, it is not the ornamental details, but 

 those larger parts to which the building owes its stability, which should 

 be compared. 



Viewed in this manner, we have no hesitation in saying that Perpendic- 

 ular is the most constructional of all the styles of Pointed architecture. 

 Its very name implies as much. It might be pronounced a priori that a 

 style distinguished by continuous vertical lines would alford the most 

 convenient bearings for sustaining superincumbent weights, and would 

 therefore be the most useful for lofty buildings. Accordingly, we find 

 vertical shafts, such as those which run up between the windows of King's 

 College Chapel, from the ground to the vaulting, support the roof more 

 directly, and therefore more efficiently, than do the clerestory walls of a 

 Decorated church. At all events, it cannot be disputed that the construc- 

 tion is more apparent in the former case. 



Vaulted roofs appear more consistent with Pointed architecture thaa 

 wooden roofs, because the construction of the latter is usually of the kind 

 which we have termed trabeate. The principle of arcuation has never 

 oeen so thoroughly and magnificently developed as in the fan-vaultiog 

 peculiar to Perpendicular architecture. 



It has been objected to the panel-work of this style that it produces 

 "an easy but gaudy system of surface decoration." The ohjectors seem 

 to forget that each style is capable of being treated skilfully and unskil- 

 fully, and that, after all, its excellence depends principally on the com- 

 petency of each individual architect. It cannot be denied that throughout 

 the Perpendicular period the facility of produciug embellishment Ijy 

 panel-work was frequently abused — ^jnst as in the Deoorated period 

 Uovving tracery frequently became entangled and confused. The Medi- 

 eval architects with all their skill were not infallible {honus dhrmitat 

 Homerui). M'hat then .'—because the use of panelling was sometimes 



