DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29899#0293
Bk. Y. Ch. Y.
COLOGNE CATHEDBAL.
273
confusion produced. When \ve turn to the interior to see what the
vault is, which this mass of abutments is provided to support, we find
it with all the defects of French vaulting—the ribs few and weak, the
ridge undulating, the surfaces twisted, and the general efFect poor and
feeble as compared with the gorgeous walls that support it. Yery
judicious painting might remedy this to some extent ; but as it now
stands the effect is most unpleasing.
The noblest as well as the most original part of the design of this
cathedral is the western façade (Woodcut No. 747). As now com-
pleted, it rises to the height of 510 ft. This front, considered as an
independent feature, without reference to its position, is a very grand
conception. It equals in magnificence those designed for Strasburg
and Louvain, and surpasses both in purity and elegance, though it is
very questionable if the open work of the spires is not carried to far
too great an extent, and even the lower part designed far too much by
rule. M. Boisserée says, “the square ancl the triangle here reign
supreme ; ” ancl this is certainly the case : every part is designecl with
the scale and the compasses, ancl with a mathematical precision perfectly
astonishing : but we miss all the fanciful beauty of the more irregular
French and English examples. The storeyecl porches of Rheims,
Chartres, ancl Wells comprise far more poetry within their limitecl
dimensions than is spread over the whole surface of this gigantic
frontispiece. Cologne is a noble conception of a mason, but these were
the works of artists in the highest sense of the word.
It is certainly to be regretted that there is no contemporary
French example to compare with Cologne, so that we might have
been enabled to bring this to a clearer test than worcls can clo. St.
Ouen’s comes nearest to it in age ancl style, but it is so very much
smaller as hardly to admit of comparison ; for though the length o£
the two churches is nearly identical, the one covers 91,000 square
feet, the other little more than half that, or only 47,000. Yet so
judicious is the disposition of the smaller church, and so exquisite
its proportions, that notwithstanding the late age of its nave, and
the inappropriateness of its modern front, it is internally a more
beautiful and almost as imposing a church as that of Cologne, and
externally a far more pleasing study as a work of art. Had Marc
d’Argent commenced his building at the same time as the builder of
Cologne, and seen it completed, or had he left his design for it prior
to 1322, even with its smaller dimensions, it would have been by far
the nobler work of art of the two. These, however, are after all but
vain speculations. We find in Cologne the finest specimen of masonry
attempted in the Middle Ages ; and notwithstanding its defects, we
now see in the completed design a really beautiful and noble building,
worthy of its builders and of the religion to which it is dedicated.
At Freiburg, in the Breisgau, there is a contemporary example
VOT„. II.
T
COLOGNE CATHEDBAL.
273
confusion produced. When \ve turn to the interior to see what the
vault is, which this mass of abutments is provided to support, we find
it with all the defects of French vaulting—the ribs few and weak, the
ridge undulating, the surfaces twisted, and the general efFect poor and
feeble as compared with the gorgeous walls that support it. Yery
judicious painting might remedy this to some extent ; but as it now
stands the effect is most unpleasing.
The noblest as well as the most original part of the design of this
cathedral is the western façade (Woodcut No. 747). As now com-
pleted, it rises to the height of 510 ft. This front, considered as an
independent feature, without reference to its position, is a very grand
conception. It equals in magnificence those designed for Strasburg
and Louvain, and surpasses both in purity and elegance, though it is
very questionable if the open work of the spires is not carried to far
too great an extent, and even the lower part designed far too much by
rule. M. Boisserée says, “the square ancl the triangle here reign
supreme ; ” ancl this is certainly the case : every part is designecl with
the scale and the compasses, ancl with a mathematical precision perfectly
astonishing : but we miss all the fanciful beauty of the more irregular
French and English examples. The storeyecl porches of Rheims,
Chartres, ancl Wells comprise far more poetry within their limitecl
dimensions than is spread over the whole surface of this gigantic
frontispiece. Cologne is a noble conception of a mason, but these were
the works of artists in the highest sense of the word.
It is certainly to be regretted that there is no contemporary
French example to compare with Cologne, so that we might have
been enabled to bring this to a clearer test than worcls can clo. St.
Ouen’s comes nearest to it in age ancl style, but it is so very much
smaller as hardly to admit of comparison ; for though the length o£
the two churches is nearly identical, the one covers 91,000 square
feet, the other little more than half that, or only 47,000. Yet so
judicious is the disposition of the smaller church, and so exquisite
its proportions, that notwithstanding the late age of its nave, and
the inappropriateness of its modern front, it is internally a more
beautiful and almost as imposing a church as that of Cologne, and
externally a far more pleasing study as a work of art. Had Marc
d’Argent commenced his building at the same time as the builder of
Cologne, and seen it completed, or had he left his design for it prior
to 1322, even with its smaller dimensions, it would have been by far
the nobler work of art of the two. These, however, are after all but
vain speculations. We find in Cologne the finest specimen of masonry
attempted in the Middle Ages ; and notwithstanding its defects, we
now see in the completed design a really beautiful and noble building,
worthy of its builders and of the religion to which it is dedicated.
At Freiburg, in the Breisgau, there is a contemporary example
VOT„. II.
T