DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26747#0829
Chap. I.
POINTED ARCHITECTURE IN ITALY.
765
are of tlie rnost daring construction, supported by coupled piers; and
the pointed arch, on wliicli so much stress is usually laid, is used
currently in every part; and yet with all this, these buildings are only
cold, unmeaning, inartistic productions, with all the defects and
hardly one of the beauties of the true pointed Gothic edifices. This
being so, it cannot be difficult to find out to what the one style owes
its perfection, and what was the cause of want of success in the
other.
One great cause of this seems to lie deep in the character of the
people. It is to be observed that, however excellent in other depart-
ments of art, no Italians were ever great architects. The Etruscans,
as we have seen, were not extensive builders, though what they did
they seem to have done well. The Eomans borrowed a style from
the Greeks, which they never understood, and which they misused,
misapplied, and spoilt. The Lombards were Germanic foreigners in
the land, and great and original as builders only so long as they
retained tbeir nationality. No sooner did their distinct character die
out and the indigenous race resume its sway, than their architecture
decayed; they adopted the then fashionable style of France and Ger-
many, but adopted it late, without comprehending its principles.
Dissatisfied with their own productions, the Italians quickly abandoned
it, and returned to the old classical style. This last change seems to
have been made far more from associations with the name of Eome,
which alone rendered them and their peninsula illustrious, than from
any distinct perception either of the beauty of the style itself or of
its fitness for their purposes. Lnfortunately for Europe, the revival
of classical literature at the same time led the Northern nations to
follow in the same vicious path, and to cover the land with all the
absurdities of the revived classical school.
Among the material causes that aided this natural disposition
or defect in the minds of the people, one of the principal was their
dislike to, or inaptitude for appreciating the beauties of stained
glass.
In a previous chapter it has been attempted to explain how all-
important this was to the elaboration of the Gothic style. But for its
introduction, the architecture of France would bear no resemblance
to what we there find. In Italy, though the people loved poly-
chromy, it was always of the opaque class. They delighted to cover
the walls of their churches with. frescoes or mosaics, to enrich their
floors with the most gorgeous pavements, and to scatter golden stars
on a blue ground over their vaults; but rarely, if ever, did they fill,
or design to fill, their windows with painted glass. Perhaps tlie glare
of an Italian sun may have tended to render its brilliancy intolerable.
More probably the absence of stained glass in Italy is owing to its in-
compatibility with fresco-painting, the effect of which would be entirely
destroyed by the superior brightness of the transparent material. The
Italians were not prepared to relinquish the old and favourite mode of
decoration in which they excelled. This adherence to the old method
of ornamenting churches enabled them, inthe 15th and 16th centuries,
POINTED ARCHITECTURE IN ITALY.
765
are of tlie rnost daring construction, supported by coupled piers; and
the pointed arch, on wliicli so much stress is usually laid, is used
currently in every part; and yet with all this, these buildings are only
cold, unmeaning, inartistic productions, with all the defects and
hardly one of the beauties of the true pointed Gothic edifices. This
being so, it cannot be difficult to find out to what the one style owes
its perfection, and what was the cause of want of success in the
other.
One great cause of this seems to lie deep in the character of the
people. It is to be observed that, however excellent in other depart-
ments of art, no Italians were ever great architects. The Etruscans,
as we have seen, were not extensive builders, though what they did
they seem to have done well. The Eomans borrowed a style from
the Greeks, which they never understood, and which they misused,
misapplied, and spoilt. The Lombards were Germanic foreigners in
the land, and great and original as builders only so long as they
retained tbeir nationality. No sooner did their distinct character die
out and the indigenous race resume its sway, than their architecture
decayed; they adopted the then fashionable style of France and Ger-
many, but adopted it late, without comprehending its principles.
Dissatisfied with their own productions, the Italians quickly abandoned
it, and returned to the old classical style. This last change seems to
have been made far more from associations with the name of Eome,
which alone rendered them and their peninsula illustrious, than from
any distinct perception either of the beauty of the style itself or of
its fitness for their purposes. Lnfortunately for Europe, the revival
of classical literature at the same time led the Northern nations to
follow in the same vicious path, and to cover the land with all the
absurdities of the revived classical school.
Among the material causes that aided this natural disposition
or defect in the minds of the people, one of the principal was their
dislike to, or inaptitude for appreciating the beauties of stained
glass.
In a previous chapter it has been attempted to explain how all-
important this was to the elaboration of the Gothic style. But for its
introduction, the architecture of France would bear no resemblance
to what we there find. In Italy, though the people loved poly-
chromy, it was always of the opaque class. They delighted to cover
the walls of their churches with. frescoes or mosaics, to enrich their
floors with the most gorgeous pavements, and to scatter golden stars
on a blue ground over their vaults; but rarely, if ever, did they fill,
or design to fill, their windows with painted glass. Perhaps tlie glare
of an Italian sun may have tended to render its brilliancy intolerable.
More probably the absence of stained glass in Italy is owing to its in-
compatibility with fresco-painting, the effect of which would be entirely
destroyed by the superior brightness of the transparent material. The
Italians were not prepared to relinquish the old and favourite mode of
decoration in which they excelled. This adherence to the old method
of ornamenting churches enabled them, inthe 15th and 16th centuries,