DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26747#0626
562
RHENISH ARCHITECTURE.
Book II.
French in all their edifices in the age of its greatest development in
that country.
On the other hand, the Germans may fairly lay claim to the inven-
tion of the particular style which prevailed throughout Lomhardy and
Germany of which we are now speaking. This style, it is true, never
was fully developed, and never reached that perfection of finish and
completeness which the pointed style attained. Notwithstanding this,
I feel convinced that it contained nohler elements than the other, and
was capable of far more successful cultivation. Had its simpler form
and grander dimensions been elahorated with the same care and taste,
Europe would have possessed a higher style of medimval architecture
than she ever saw. The task, how;ever, was ahandoned hefore it was
half completed, and it is only too prohahle now that it can never he
resumed.
A complete history of this style, worthy of its importance, is still
a desideratum which it is to he hoped the zeal and industry of German
architects will ere long supply, and vindicate their national art from
the ueglect it now lies under, hy illustrating as it deserves one of
the most interesting chapters in the history of architecture.1 Already
German writers seem to he aware that the age of the Hohenstaufens
was not only the most exclusively national, hut. also the most hrilliant
period of their history. Its annals have engaged the pens of their
hest liistorians. Its poetry has heen rescued from ohscurity and com-
mented upon with characteristic fulness. Every phase of their civi-
lisation has heen illustrated fully, except one—that one heing their
architeeture, the nohlest and the most living record of what they did
or aspired to, that could he left for their posterity to study. So dis-
tinctly is it their own, that, were it necessary to find for it a separate
name, the style of tlie Hohenstaufens would he that which most
correctly descrihes it.
The complete description of this style must he left. to works in
which the suhject can he treated more fully than is possihle here.
All we can hope to do is to define it so as to separate it clearly from
other styles, and to point out its more important and characteristic
features. The first will not he difScult, as it has singularly little
affinity witli any of the contemporary styles except the Burgundian;
and perhaps even Burgundy ought to he considered a province of
Germany rather than of France in the age to which we refer. At alJ
events, there is sufficient, affinity hetween the people to account for
this similarity. The Norman and other styles of France differ so
essentially as to be easily distinguished one from the other.
The leading characteristics of the German style are tlie douhle
apsidal arrangement of plan, the multiplication of small circular or
octangular towers, comhined with polygonal domes, at the intersections
1 The work of F. Osten on the architecture history. Both these first-named works were
of Lombardy, and that of Geier and Gorz left incomplete, the former from the death of
on the style in the Bfiine country, combined the author, the latter owing to the late
with the works of Boisseree, have already troubles of the country.
furnished considerable materials for such a
RHENISH ARCHITECTURE.
Book II.
French in all their edifices in the age of its greatest development in
that country.
On the other hand, the Germans may fairly lay claim to the inven-
tion of the particular style which prevailed throughout Lomhardy and
Germany of which we are now speaking. This style, it is true, never
was fully developed, and never reached that perfection of finish and
completeness which the pointed style attained. Notwithstanding this,
I feel convinced that it contained nohler elements than the other, and
was capable of far more successful cultivation. Had its simpler form
and grander dimensions been elahorated with the same care and taste,
Europe would have possessed a higher style of medimval architecture
than she ever saw. The task, how;ever, was ahandoned hefore it was
half completed, and it is only too prohahle now that it can never he
resumed.
A complete history of this style, worthy of its importance, is still
a desideratum which it is to he hoped the zeal and industry of German
architects will ere long supply, and vindicate their national art from
the ueglect it now lies under, hy illustrating as it deserves one of
the most interesting chapters in the history of architecture.1 Already
German writers seem to he aware that the age of the Hohenstaufens
was not only the most exclusively national, hut. also the most hrilliant
period of their history. Its annals have engaged the pens of their
hest liistorians. Its poetry has heen rescued from ohscurity and com-
mented upon with characteristic fulness. Every phase of their civi-
lisation has heen illustrated fully, except one—that one heing their
architeeture, the nohlest and the most living record of what they did
or aspired to, that could he left for their posterity to study. So dis-
tinctly is it their own, that, were it necessary to find for it a separate
name, the style of tlie Hohenstaufens would he that which most
correctly descrihes it.
The complete description of this style must he left. to works in
which the suhject can he treated more fully than is possihle here.
All we can hope to do is to define it so as to separate it clearly from
other styles, and to point out its more important and characteristic
features. The first will not he difScult, as it has singularly little
affinity witli any of the contemporary styles except the Burgundian;
and perhaps even Burgundy ought to he considered a province of
Germany rather than of France in the age to which we refer. At alJ
events, there is sufficient, affinity hetween the people to account for
this similarity. The Norman and other styles of France differ so
essentially as to be easily distinguished one from the other.
The leading characteristics of the German style are tlie douhle
apsidal arrangement of plan, the multiplication of small circular or
octangular towers, comhined with polygonal domes, at the intersections
1 The work of F. Osten on the architecture history. Both these first-named works were
of Lombardy, and that of Geier and Gorz left incomplete, the former from the death of
on the style in the Bfiine country, combined the author, the latter owing to the late
with the works of Boisseree, have already troubles of the country.
furnished considerable materials for such a