DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29899#0406
386
ENGLISH ARCHITECTURE.
Part II.
more important feature in the centre, the architects showecl only their
usual discretion in refusing to dwarf the rest of the cathedral by an
exaggerated façade.
It may sound like the indulgence of national predilection to say so ;
but it does seern that the English architects seized the true doctrine of
proportion to a greater extent than their contemporaries on the Con-
tinent, and applied it more successfully. It will be easily understood
that in so complicated and constructive a machine as a Gothic cathe-
dral, unless every part is in proportion the whole will not unite. It is
as if, in a watch or any delicate piece of machinery, one wheel or one
part were made stronger or larger in proportion to all the rest. It
may be quite true that it would be better if all were as strong or as
large as this one part ; but perfection in all the arts is .attained only
by balance and proportion. Whenever any one part gets too large for
the rest the harmony is destroyed. This the English architects
perfectly understood. They kept their cathedrals narrow, that they
might appear long ; they kept them low, that they might not appear too
narrow. They broke up the length with transepts, that it might not
fatigue by monotony. Externally they kept their roofs low that
with little expenditure they might obtain a varied and dignified
sky-line, and they balanced every part against every other so as to
get the greatest value out of each without interfering with the
whole. A Gothic cathedral, however, is so complicated—there are
so many parts and so many things to think of—that none can be
said to be perfect. A pyramid may be so, or a tower, or a Greek
temple, or any very simple form of building, whatever its size ; but a
Gothic cathedral hardly can be made so—at least has not yet, though
perhaps it might now be ; but in the meanwhile the English, con-
sidering the limited dimensions of their buiklings, seem to have
approached a perfect ideal more nearly than any other nation during
the Middle Ages.
Diversity op Style.
There is still another consideration which must not be lost sight
of in attempting to estimate the relative merit of Continental and
English cathedrals ; which is, the extraordinary diversity of style
which generally prevails in the same building in this country as com-
pared with those abroad. AIl the Great French cathedrals—such as
Paris, Rheims, Chartres, Bourges, and Amiens—'are singularly uniform
throughout. Internally it requires a very keen perception of style to
appreciate the clifference, and externally the variations are generally
in the towers, or in unessential adjuncts which hardly interfere with
the general design. In this country we have scarcely a cathedral,
except Salisbury, of which this can be said. It is truc that Norwich is
ENGLISH ARCHITECTURE.
Part II.
more important feature in the centre, the architects showecl only their
usual discretion in refusing to dwarf the rest of the cathedral by an
exaggerated façade.
It may sound like the indulgence of national predilection to say so ;
but it does seern that the English architects seized the true doctrine of
proportion to a greater extent than their contemporaries on the Con-
tinent, and applied it more successfully. It will be easily understood
that in so complicated and constructive a machine as a Gothic cathe-
dral, unless every part is in proportion the whole will not unite. It is
as if, in a watch or any delicate piece of machinery, one wheel or one
part were made stronger or larger in proportion to all the rest. It
may be quite true that it would be better if all were as strong or as
large as this one part ; but perfection in all the arts is .attained only
by balance and proportion. Whenever any one part gets too large for
the rest the harmony is destroyed. This the English architects
perfectly understood. They kept their cathedrals narrow, that they
might appear long ; they kept them low, that they might not appear too
narrow. They broke up the length with transepts, that it might not
fatigue by monotony. Externally they kept their roofs low that
with little expenditure they might obtain a varied and dignified
sky-line, and they balanced every part against every other so as to
get the greatest value out of each without interfering with the
whole. A Gothic cathedral, however, is so complicated—there are
so many parts and so many things to think of—that none can be
said to be perfect. A pyramid may be so, or a tower, or a Greek
temple, or any very simple form of building, whatever its size ; but a
Gothic cathedral hardly can be made so—at least has not yet, though
perhaps it might now be ; but in the meanwhile the English, con-
sidering the limited dimensions of their buiklings, seem to have
approached a perfect ideal more nearly than any other nation during
the Middle Ages.
Diversity op Style.
There is still another consideration which must not be lost sight
of in attempting to estimate the relative merit of Continental and
English cathedrals ; which is, the extraordinary diversity of style
which generally prevails in the same building in this country as com-
pared with those abroad. AIl the Great French cathedrals—such as
Paris, Rheims, Chartres, Bourges, and Amiens—'are singularly uniform
throughout. Internally it requires a very keen perception of style to
appreciate the clifference, and externally the variations are generally
in the towers, or in unessential adjuncts which hardly interfere with
the general design. In this country we have scarcely a cathedral,
except Salisbury, of which this can be said. It is truc that Norwich is