Architectural Refinements 
familiar to us in the churches of North Europe; a 
history of constant unfinishing, of perpetual change 
of design, of addition on all sides; so that the final 
result as we see it, is just a medley of rebuildings. 
Mr. Goodyear supposes us to know that the church¬ 
es he shows were not of this sort; hut one wishes he 
could give his ignorant readers occasionally the facts 
he knows so well himself. 
I must confess myself unable to surrender, as to 
some of his examples, the ideas which the examina¬ 
tion of English cathedrals suggests. There are in 
our most ancient churches two particular places 
where we expect to find irregularities, deflections, 
and breaks of design. The one is some few bays 
to the east of the crossing, the other some few bays 
to the west of it. Now, in our northern churches 
we know what, at such places, these appearances 
mean. They do not show any particular archi¬ 
tectural refinement, but indicate the history of the 
building—a history which may be summarised as 
follows: 
The first building of a great church for monks 
or canons was to provide for their daily services. 
The ritual of this required a sanctuary for the main 
altar, a presbytery for the movement of the clergy, 
and a choir space for their singing. The apse met 
the first requirement, the bays east of the crossing 
and the crossing itself gave the second, and the two 
or three bays west of the crossing gave the third. 
From apse to the screen which separated the choir 
from the nave was the working-part of the church. 
It was built as a whole and kept intact during all 
subsequent additions and rebuildings. Continua¬ 
tions of the fabric and additions to it went on out¬ 
side, and, when complete, were joined on. One 
can see how this space asserts itself in our churches, 
so that their lengths exhibit settings-out in three divi¬ 
sions: (i) that of the original service-space as above 
defined; (2) the completion of this first designing of 
the church, begun at the west end, and often only 
at some considerable interval made one with the 
first; and (3) an addition of chapels begun outside 
on the east, and afterwards joined on to the quire by 
the removal of the original apse. Now, many of 
Mr. Goodyear’s “refinements” are the deflections, 
bends, and curvatures which occur just at the spots 
where, if this setting-out in three sections had taken 
place, there would be likely to he misfits. Take 
the plan and internal view of Fiesole Cathedral for 
example. 
Now, Mr. Goodyear has satisfied himself that 
such a history as I have sketched above cannot by 
any possibility be supposed for this cathedral; for 
had it been possible, he would have dealt with this 
possibility. So in the case of many others, Mr. 
Goodyear claims that he has visited and examined 
all these churches and knows their history, whereas 
his critics know them not. I he retort is a telling 
one, and until I have been to Fiesole, Troja, etc., 
and seen for myself, my conjectures lack substance. 
Class V .-—Masoncrajt Habits .—The Edinburgh 
Exhibition showed how constant in mediaeval build¬ 
ings was the sloping backwards of piers and arch 
jambs, often with a slight curvature, and Mr. Good¬ 
year claims this as an entasis based on the tradition 
of the classic column. He is able to show that in 
many of his instances the idea of the lean having 
occurred through thrust is not tenable, for it is to 
be seen at the internal angles where thrust would 
not be felt. The piers which have it have evidently 
been built to have this backward curve. Is this, 
then, an architectural refinement ? 
His critics point to the fact that these vertical leans 
of pillars, etc., follow the backward slope of the 
walls, so that the “entasis” of the pier is really part 
of the “batter” of the wall. It is curious that Mr. 
Goodyear, in all his investigation of leans, never 
once uses this common word “batter”—the fact of 
which is as common as the word in all stone-build¬ 
ing. Until architects came and drew their walls 
upright, the masoncraft of all ages and styles had 
been building walls to batter. It does not, therefore, 
seem necessary to credit the builders of Amiens 
with some subtle constructive skill, nor am I much 
impressed at Mr. Goodyear’s discovery that the 
“Suisse” there and the “Bedeau” knew all about 
it. I believe, too, that the slight stilting of arches, 
to which Mr. Goodyear devotes many illustrations, 
is just another constructive expedient of stonecraft 
to allow of the centres being well wedged up without 
their bearing on the abacus of the capitals. The 
setting hack of pillars on an upper storey behind 
the line below, as at St. Mark’s, is also a mason’s 
expedient to prevent the edges of his strings being 
flushed off. But such possibilities do not enter into 
Mr. Goodyear’s argument for bis refinements. 
Ci .ass VI .—Perspective Devices .—These are clear¬ 
ly not of construction but of design. Mr. Goodyear 
has long maintained that at Poitiers the drawing-in 
of the arcades to the east and the lowering of arches 
were designed to produce the optical illusions of a 
long perspective. This fact is now generally ad¬ 
mitted, and there are other examples of the same 
kind, such as Bernini’s staircase to the Vatican. 
Italian and American gardens go in for scenic illu¬ 
sions of this sort: they can hardly be called refine¬ 
ments. Their obvious artificiality bespeaks, I think, 
rather a coarseness of building conception. But in 
a less theatrical way the optical illusion has been 
used in all architecture to enhance the dignity of 
the principal or sacred object. When a floor, for 
example, is raised towards the east end; when the 
arch over the sanctuary is allowed to come below 
the line so as to give a space for a painting or mo¬ 
saic, we can recognise such ceremonial dignity as 
designed—but I do not hold with Mr. Goodyear 
195 
