DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61894#0184
154
CLASSICAL TOUR
Ch. IV.
greatness of manner, and impair in no small de-
gree the general grandeur and effect. Which of
the two fronts is most deficient in this respect it is
difficult to determine; on the defects of the Vatican
I have expatiated above; those of St. Paul’s are
the double gallery, the coupled pillars, and the
composite cornice. The colonnade that surrounds
the dome of St. Paul’s, though liable in its form,
proportions, capitals, &c. to much criticism, is
yet the noblest ornament of the edifice, and con-
sidered by many as superior in appearance to the
coupled columns that occupy a similar situation
in St. Peter’s. It happens however unfortunately,
that the decoration which contributes so much to
the majesty of the exterior should take away from
the beauty of the interior, and by masking the
windows deprive the dome of the light requisite
to shew off its concavity to advantage. Yet, be
the defects of St. Paul’s even greater and more
numerous than I have stated, it is on the whole a
most extensive and stately edifice: it fixes the
eye of the spectator as he passes by, and challenges
his admiration: and even as next to the Vatican,
though longo proximum intervallo, it claims su-
periority over all the transalpine churches, and
furnishes a just subject of national pride and ex-
ultation. I take this opportunity of expressing
the public indignation at the manner in which
this cathedral is kept, the dirt collected on the
CLASSICAL TOUR
Ch. IV.
greatness of manner, and impair in no small de-
gree the general grandeur and effect. Which of
the two fronts is most deficient in this respect it is
difficult to determine; on the defects of the Vatican
I have expatiated above; those of St. Paul’s are
the double gallery, the coupled pillars, and the
composite cornice. The colonnade that surrounds
the dome of St. Paul’s, though liable in its form,
proportions, capitals, &c. to much criticism, is
yet the noblest ornament of the edifice, and con-
sidered by many as superior in appearance to the
coupled columns that occupy a similar situation
in St. Peter’s. It happens however unfortunately,
that the decoration which contributes so much to
the majesty of the exterior should take away from
the beauty of the interior, and by masking the
windows deprive the dome of the light requisite
to shew off its concavity to advantage. Yet, be
the defects of St. Paul’s even greater and more
numerous than I have stated, it is on the whole a
most extensive and stately edifice: it fixes the
eye of the spectator as he passes by, and challenges
his admiration: and even as next to the Vatican,
though longo proximum intervallo, it claims su-
periority over all the transalpine churches, and
furnishes a just subject of national pride and ex-
ultation. I take this opportunity of expressing
the public indignation at the manner in which
this cathedral is kept, the dirt collected on the