DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29899#0194
174
FRENCH ARCHITECTÜRE.
Part 11.
whatever either as to their purpose or their sufficiency to accomplish
their object.
Notwithstanding the beauty which the French attained in their
flying buttresses, it is stil] a question whether they did not carry this
feature too far. It must be confessed that there is a tendency in the
abuse of the systern to confuse the outlines and to injure the true
architectural effect of the exterior. Internally it no doubt enabled
them to lighten their piers and increase the size of their windows to
an unlimited extent, and to judge fairly we must balance between the
gain to the interior, and the external disadvantages. This we shall
be better able to do when considering the next constructive expedient,
which was that of the introduction of pinnacles.
PlNNACLES.
The use of pinnacles, considered independently of their ornamental
purposes, is evident enough. It is obvious that a wall or pillar which
has to resist the thrust of a vault or any other power exerted. laterally,
depends for its stability on its thickness, its solidity, and generally
on its lateral strength. A material consideration, as affecting this
solidity, is that of weight. The most frequent use of pinnacles by the
Prench was to surmount the piers from which the flying buttresses
sprang. To these piers weight and solidity were thus imparted,
rendering them a suffîciently steady abutment to the flying arches,
which in their turn abutted the central vaults.
It must be understood that these expedients of buttresses and
pinnacles were only employed to su|:port the central roof of the nave.
The vaults of the aisles were so narrow as not to require any elaborate
system of abutments for their support—the ordinary thickness of the
walls would have sufficed for that purpose ; but they also had the
advantage of the use of the supports designed for the larger vaults.
As a general rule the English architects never hesitated to weight
their walls so as to apply the resistance directly on the point required,
and not only adorned the roofs of their churches with pinnacles, but
raised towers and lanterns on the intersections on all occasions. The
French, on the other hand, always preferred placing these objects, not
on their churches, but rather grouped around them, and springing
from the ground. This, it is true, enabled them to indulge in height
and lightness internally to an extent unknown in England. This
extravagance pi’oved prejudicial to the true effect even of the interior,
while externally the system was very destructive of grace and har-
mony. A French cathedral is generally solid and simple, as higli
as the parapet of the side-aisles, but above this base tlie forest of
pinnacles and buttresses that spring from it entirely obscure the
FRENCH ARCHITECTÜRE.
Part 11.
whatever either as to their purpose or their sufficiency to accomplish
their object.
Notwithstanding the beauty which the French attained in their
flying buttresses, it is stil] a question whether they did not carry this
feature too far. It must be confessed that there is a tendency in the
abuse of the systern to confuse the outlines and to injure the true
architectural effect of the exterior. Internally it no doubt enabled
them to lighten their piers and increase the size of their windows to
an unlimited extent, and to judge fairly we must balance between the
gain to the interior, and the external disadvantages. This we shall
be better able to do when considering the next constructive expedient,
which was that of the introduction of pinnacles.
PlNNACLES.
The use of pinnacles, considered independently of their ornamental
purposes, is evident enough. It is obvious that a wall or pillar which
has to resist the thrust of a vault or any other power exerted. laterally,
depends for its stability on its thickness, its solidity, and generally
on its lateral strength. A material consideration, as affecting this
solidity, is that of weight. The most frequent use of pinnacles by the
Prench was to surmount the piers from which the flying buttresses
sprang. To these piers weight and solidity were thus imparted,
rendering them a suffîciently steady abutment to the flying arches,
which in their turn abutted the central vaults.
It must be understood that these expedients of buttresses and
pinnacles were only employed to su|:port the central roof of the nave.
The vaults of the aisles were so narrow as not to require any elaborate
system of abutments for their support—the ordinary thickness of the
walls would have sufficed for that purpose ; but they also had the
advantage of the use of the supports designed for the larger vaults.
As a general rule the English architects never hesitated to weight
their walls so as to apply the resistance directly on the point required,
and not only adorned the roofs of their churches with pinnacles, but
raised towers and lanterns on the intersections on all occasions. The
French, on the other hand, always preferred placing these objects, not
on their churches, but rather grouped around them, and springing
from the ground. This, it is true, enabled them to indulge in height
and lightness internally to an extent unknown in England. This
extravagance pi’oved prejudicial to the true effect even of the interior,
while externally the system was very destructive of grace and har-
mony. A French cathedral is generally solid and simple, as higli
as the parapet of the side-aisles, but above this base tlie forest of
pinnacles and buttresses that spring from it entirely obscure the