DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26747#0045
INTRODUCTION.
xli
No. II.
internally. It is easy to inerease tlie apparent height hy strongly
markecl vertical lines, or to bring it down by the employment of an
horizontal decoration. Tnrning, for instance, to the diagram No. I. :
if the two divisions c and d were on opposite sides of a street, and
not in immediate juxtaposition, it wonld be difficult to make any
one believe that c was not taller than d, and that the windows in
the latter were not farther apart and more squat than those in the
first division; and the effect might easily be increased.
If the length of a building is too great, this is easily remedied by
projections, or by breaking up the length into divisions. Thus, a a
is a long building, but b b is a square one, or
practically (owing to the perspective) less than
a square in length, in any direction at right
angles to the line of vision; or, in other words,
to a spectator at A the building would look as
if shorter in the direction of b b than in that
of A A, owing to the largeness and importance
of the part nearest the eye. If 100 feet in
length by 50 feet high is a pleasing dimension
for a certain design, and it is required that the
building should be 500 feet long, it is only
necessary to break it into five parts, and throw
three back and two forward, or the contrary, and the proportion
becomes as before.
The Egyptians hardly studied the. science of proportion at all :
they gained their effects by simpler and more obvious means. The
Greeks were masters in this as in everything else, but they used the
resources of the art with extreme sobriety—externally at least —
dreading to disturb that simplicity which is so essential to sublimity
in architecture. But internally, where sublimity was not attainable
with the dimensions they employed, they divided the cells of their
temples into three aisles, and the height into two, by placing two
ranges of columns one above the other. By these means they were
enabled to use such a number of small parts as to increase the appa-
rent size most considerably, and at tlie same time to give greater
apparent magnitude to the statue, which was the principal object for
which the temple was erected.
The Bomans do not seem to have troubled themselves with the
science of proportion; but during the nriddle ages we find, from first
to last, the most earnest attention paid to it. Ilalf the beauty of the
buildings of that age is owing to the successful results to which the
architects carried their experiments.
The first great invention of the Gotliic arcliitects (though of Greek
origin) was that of dividing the breadth of the building into three
aisles, and making the central one higher and wider than those on
each side. By this .means height and length were obtained at the
expense of width: this latter, however, is never a valuable property
artistically, though it may be indispensable for the utilitarian exi-
gences of the building. Thoy next sought to increase still further the
xli
No. II.
internally. It is easy to inerease tlie apparent height hy strongly
markecl vertical lines, or to bring it down by the employment of an
horizontal decoration. Tnrning, for instance, to the diagram No. I. :
if the two divisions c and d were on opposite sides of a street, and
not in immediate juxtaposition, it wonld be difficult to make any
one believe that c was not taller than d, and that the windows in
the latter were not farther apart and more squat than those in the
first division; and the effect might easily be increased.
If the length of a building is too great, this is easily remedied by
projections, or by breaking up the length into divisions. Thus, a a
is a long building, but b b is a square one, or
practically (owing to the perspective) less than
a square in length, in any direction at right
angles to the line of vision; or, in other words,
to a spectator at A the building would look as
if shorter in the direction of b b than in that
of A A, owing to the largeness and importance
of the part nearest the eye. If 100 feet in
length by 50 feet high is a pleasing dimension
for a certain design, and it is required that the
building should be 500 feet long, it is only
necessary to break it into five parts, and throw
three back and two forward, or the contrary, and the proportion
becomes as before.
The Egyptians hardly studied the. science of proportion at all :
they gained their effects by simpler and more obvious means. The
Greeks were masters in this as in everything else, but they used the
resources of the art with extreme sobriety—externally at least —
dreading to disturb that simplicity which is so essential to sublimity
in architecture. But internally, where sublimity was not attainable
with the dimensions they employed, they divided the cells of their
temples into three aisles, and the height into two, by placing two
ranges of columns one above the other. By these means they were
enabled to use such a number of small parts as to increase the appa-
rent size most considerably, and at tlie same time to give greater
apparent magnitude to the statue, which was the principal object for
which the temple was erected.
The Bomans do not seem to have troubled themselves with the
science of proportion; but during the nriddle ages we find, from first
to last, the most earnest attention paid to it. Ilalf the beauty of the
buildings of that age is owing to the successful results to which the
architects carried their experiments.
The first great invention of the Gotliic arcliitects (though of Greek
origin) was that of dividing the breadth of the building into three
aisles, and making the central one higher and wider than those on
each side. By this .means height and length were obtained at the
expense of width: this latter, however, is never a valuable property
artistically, though it may be indispensable for the utilitarian exi-
gences of the building. Thoy next sought to increase still further the