DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29899#0400
380
ENGLISH ARCHITECTURE.
Part II.
conventual buildings, its bishop’s palace oi’ abbot’s lodging. In France
the cathedral is generally like a giant among pigmies—nothing can
exist in its neighbourhood. The town itself is dwarfed by the immense
incubus that stands in its centre, and in almost no instance can the
subordinate buildings be said to form part of the same design 1—both
consequently suffering from their quasi-accidental juxtaposition.
This effect is even more apparent when we come to examine the
sky-line of the buildings. Their moderate internal dimensions enabled
the English architects to keep the roofs low, so as to give full effect to
the height of the towers, and to project their transepts so boldly as to
vary in perspective the long lines of the roofs from whatever point the
building was viewed. Their greatest gain, however, was that they were
able to place their tallest and most important feature in the centre of
their buildings, and so to give a unity and harmony to the whole design
which is generally wanting in Continental examples. One of the few
cases in which this feature is successfully carried out in France is the
church of St. Sernin at Toulouse (Woodcut Ho. 578), but there the
body of the building is low and long like the English type, and a tower
of the same height as those of the façade at Arniens sufïices to give
dignity to the whole. That church, however, wants the western towers
to complete the composition. In this respect it is the reverse of what
generally happens in French cathedrals, where the western façades are
rich and beautifully proportioned in themselves, but too often over-
powered by the building in the rear, and unsupported by any central
object. In Germany they took their revenge, and in many instances
kill the building to which they are attached. In England the group of
three towers or spires—the typical arrangement of our architects—was
always pleasing, and very frequently surpasses in grace and appro-
priateness anything to be found on the Continent. Even when, as at
ISTorwich or at Chichester, the spire is unsupported by any western
towers, the same effect of dignity is produced as at Toulouse ; the design
is pyramidal, and from whatever point it is viewed it is felt to be well
balanced, which is seldoru the case when the greatest elevation is at one
end.
The cathedral at Salisbury (Woodcut No. 834), though, like the two
last named, it has no western towers, still possesses so noble a spire in
the centre, and two transepts so boldly projecting, that when viewed
from any point east of the great transept it displays one of the best
proportioned and at the same time most poetic designs of the Middle
Ages. It is quite true that the spire is an afterthought of the 14th
century, and that those who added it ought to have completed the
design by erecting also two western towers, but, like St. Sernin’s, it is
1 Tbis was not so much the case in | carried up to a mucli greater height than
Paris ancl Rouen, where the houses were I in other towns.—Ed.
ENGLISH ARCHITECTURE.
Part II.
conventual buildings, its bishop’s palace oi’ abbot’s lodging. In France
the cathedral is generally like a giant among pigmies—nothing can
exist in its neighbourhood. The town itself is dwarfed by the immense
incubus that stands in its centre, and in almost no instance can the
subordinate buildings be said to form part of the same design 1—both
consequently suffering from their quasi-accidental juxtaposition.
This effect is even more apparent when we come to examine the
sky-line of the buildings. Their moderate internal dimensions enabled
the English architects to keep the roofs low, so as to give full effect to
the height of the towers, and to project their transepts so boldly as to
vary in perspective the long lines of the roofs from whatever point the
building was viewed. Their greatest gain, however, was that they were
able to place their tallest and most important feature in the centre of
their buildings, and so to give a unity and harmony to the whole design
which is generally wanting in Continental examples. One of the few
cases in which this feature is successfully carried out in France is the
church of St. Sernin at Toulouse (Woodcut Ho. 578), but there the
body of the building is low and long like the English type, and a tower
of the same height as those of the façade at Arniens sufïices to give
dignity to the whole. That church, however, wants the western towers
to complete the composition. In this respect it is the reverse of what
generally happens in French cathedrals, where the western façades are
rich and beautifully proportioned in themselves, but too often over-
powered by the building in the rear, and unsupported by any central
object. In Germany they took their revenge, and in many instances
kill the building to which they are attached. In England the group of
three towers or spires—the typical arrangement of our architects—was
always pleasing, and very frequently surpasses in grace and appro-
priateness anything to be found on the Continent. Even when, as at
ISTorwich or at Chichester, the spire is unsupported by any western
towers, the same effect of dignity is produced as at Toulouse ; the design
is pyramidal, and from whatever point it is viewed it is felt to be well
balanced, which is seldoru the case when the greatest elevation is at one
end.
The cathedral at Salisbury (Woodcut No. 834), though, like the two
last named, it has no western towers, still possesses so noble a spire in
the centre, and two transepts so boldly projecting, that when viewed
from any point east of the great transept it displays one of the best
proportioned and at the same time most poetic designs of the Middle
Ages. It is quite true that the spire is an afterthought of the 14th
century, and that those who added it ought to have completed the
design by erecting also two western towers, but, like St. Sernin’s, it is
1 Tbis was not so much the case in | carried up to a mucli greater height than
Paris ancl Rouen, where the houses were I in other towns.—Ed.