DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52829#0179
105
“ To the wheels and gibbets of the Duke d’Alva,” says Andrews,
“ England is indebted for the improvement of her manufactures: scared
by his inhumanity, the Flemish artisans fled hither in shoals, and were
received by Elizabeth with humanity and hospitality.”
By these men, on their various tastes, was formed that style of house-
hold furniture which is at this time again so highly esteemed, and sought
to be revived. But the revivers appear to be more deficient in discernment
than even those who, from Walpole’s time, have been labouring to renew
the architecture of the same era under the name of “ Gothic” Their
common fault is, in not distinguishing what was devoted to the service of
God from that which was devised for the accommodation of man.
Church and house architecture* were not so dissimilar in character as
church and house furniture. Making, therefore, dining-room seats dimi-
nutives of cathedral stalls, crenellating footstools, and machicolating
bedsteads, as is now the practice, are still more glaring incongruities
than mingling ecclesiastical with domestic features in the construction
of one edifice.
A rational principle of utility pervaded the works of the old artisans;
and although some articles were carved in panels, with groups from
sacred history, enriched with representations of shrines, altars, &c., the
pieces themselves bore no resemblance in shape to the forms of buildings.
Portable buttresses and pinnacles, which we now see applied to light
* “ The taste of all these stately mansions (houses of the 16th century) was that style
which intervened between Gothic and Grecian architecture; or which was, perhaps, the style
that had been invented for the houses of the nobility when they first ventured, on the settle-
ment of the kingdom after the termination of the quarrel between the Roses, to abandon their
fortified dungeons, and consult convenience and magnificence: for I am persuaded, that what
we call Gothic architecture was confined solely to religious buildings, and never entered into
the decorations of private houses.”—Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting.
P
“ To the wheels and gibbets of the Duke d’Alva,” says Andrews,
“ England is indebted for the improvement of her manufactures: scared
by his inhumanity, the Flemish artisans fled hither in shoals, and were
received by Elizabeth with humanity and hospitality.”
By these men, on their various tastes, was formed that style of house-
hold furniture which is at this time again so highly esteemed, and sought
to be revived. But the revivers appear to be more deficient in discernment
than even those who, from Walpole’s time, have been labouring to renew
the architecture of the same era under the name of “ Gothic” Their
common fault is, in not distinguishing what was devoted to the service of
God from that which was devised for the accommodation of man.
Church and house architecture* were not so dissimilar in character as
church and house furniture. Making, therefore, dining-room seats dimi-
nutives of cathedral stalls, crenellating footstools, and machicolating
bedsteads, as is now the practice, are still more glaring incongruities
than mingling ecclesiastical with domestic features in the construction
of one edifice.
A rational principle of utility pervaded the works of the old artisans;
and although some articles were carved in panels, with groups from
sacred history, enriched with representations of shrines, altars, &c., the
pieces themselves bore no resemblance in shape to the forms of buildings.
Portable buttresses and pinnacles, which we now see applied to light
* “ The taste of all these stately mansions (houses of the 16th century) was that style
which intervened between Gothic and Grecian architecture; or which was, perhaps, the style
that had been invented for the houses of the nobility when they first ventured, on the settle-
ment of the kingdom after the termination of the quarrel between the Roses, to abandon their
fortified dungeons, and consult convenience and magnificence: for I am persuaded, that what
we call Gothic architecture was confined solely to religious buildings, and never entered into
the decorations of private houses.”—Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting.
P