DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41589#0030
But St. Hugh’s choir does not fit fully into this account: there the shafts of the vault
originally continued down to the pier bases, firmly marking the bay divisions; yet the
choir has, as we shall see, even more variety than the nave.
Because of its eccentricities one might be tempted to call this architecture
Mannerist; but Mannerism usually implies a move from the standard of a particular
style that has been already dominant for some time. Lincoln is such an early example of
the Gothic style in England, one of the earliest, that to call it Mannerist would be
misleading. Paul Frankl coined a word to capture the building’s aesthetic flavour:
’’Acyrism”4. He considered the vault pattern to be the key to the whole design yet even
he did not appreciate the extent of deliberate variation in the details.
Nikolaus Pevsner discussed the crazy vault and the syncopated arcading in terms of
the designer’s sense of play; he also suggested that musical analogies may be most
helpful in trying to understand the uniqueness of the design5. The double arcading, for
instance, he thought might be better described as contrapuntal than syncopated. This
was presumably because they continue behind the vault respond shafts and around
corners rather than stopping and re-starting in the manner of ’’harmonic” music. Yet he
referred to the odd corners as painful and muddled, evidently not allowing them a fully
deliberate part to play in the overall effect. Baily also considers that many of the details
must be interpreted as mistakes6.
The musical analogy is appropriate in directing our attention to the interwoven
effects of the design. Yet like "Mannerism” it is anachronistic and also serves to
emphasize the extent to which this building undermines cherished art historical
categories. In St. Hugh’s Choir we are faced with effects which are either before their
time (Decorated, Mannerist) or which exemplify enduring characteristics that could be
found in any age (Acyrist).
Detailed description
How, then, is the interior of the building experienced? The form of the high vault is
certainly on of the most salient features, its asymmetry causing puzzlement to any
reasonably observant visitor. Not only is the bay system negated but the eye is shunted
restlessly from side to side, a movement counteracted only by the ridge-rib which carries
the glance toward the east end where, in the original design on any likely reconstruction,
the pattern of the apse vault would have held and focussed one’s attention. In this way
the dissonance would have been resolved above the high altar.
In the eastern transepts the sexpartite vault, in itself different from those of both
choir and aisles, is supported differently on each side. On one side three slender shafts
run up to the vault, on the other just one thicker shaft (Fig. 9). Hoey suggests that this
asymmetry is due to the different design of the piers on either side but in this case it is
not at all clear that the pier design takes precedence; when considered in relation to all
the other features it is more likely that the asymmetry was chosen for its own sake.
The aisle double arcading is syncopated and eccentric in various ways. The extent of
its eccentricity has, to my knowledge, never been fully described. There is an
extraordinary variety of squashed arches in places where the arcading comes to a halt
(Figs 10, 11). If there were just one of these it might be due to a mistake in cutting the
stones but the blocks of stone are fitted together closely, with no sign of misalignment or
re-cutting. Moreover the number and variety of them and the asymmetry they cause,
taken together with all the other eccentricities of the design, seem evidence of deliberate
intent.
Since the vaulting shafts stand a little distance in front of the arcading, they
constitute, in effect, a third layer (Fig. 12). The back of this layer is on the plane of the
wall; both layers of the double arcading are hollowed out of the depth of the wall.
Moreover this arcading originally was continued without interruption, behind the vault
28
originally continued down to the pier bases, firmly marking the bay divisions; yet the
choir has, as we shall see, even more variety than the nave.
Because of its eccentricities one might be tempted to call this architecture
Mannerist; but Mannerism usually implies a move from the standard of a particular
style that has been already dominant for some time. Lincoln is such an early example of
the Gothic style in England, one of the earliest, that to call it Mannerist would be
misleading. Paul Frankl coined a word to capture the building’s aesthetic flavour:
’’Acyrism”4. He considered the vault pattern to be the key to the whole design yet even
he did not appreciate the extent of deliberate variation in the details.
Nikolaus Pevsner discussed the crazy vault and the syncopated arcading in terms of
the designer’s sense of play; he also suggested that musical analogies may be most
helpful in trying to understand the uniqueness of the design5. The double arcading, for
instance, he thought might be better described as contrapuntal than syncopated. This
was presumably because they continue behind the vault respond shafts and around
corners rather than stopping and re-starting in the manner of ’’harmonic” music. Yet he
referred to the odd corners as painful and muddled, evidently not allowing them a fully
deliberate part to play in the overall effect. Baily also considers that many of the details
must be interpreted as mistakes6.
The musical analogy is appropriate in directing our attention to the interwoven
effects of the design. Yet like "Mannerism” it is anachronistic and also serves to
emphasize the extent to which this building undermines cherished art historical
categories. In St. Hugh’s Choir we are faced with effects which are either before their
time (Decorated, Mannerist) or which exemplify enduring characteristics that could be
found in any age (Acyrist).
Detailed description
How, then, is the interior of the building experienced? The form of the high vault is
certainly on of the most salient features, its asymmetry causing puzzlement to any
reasonably observant visitor. Not only is the bay system negated but the eye is shunted
restlessly from side to side, a movement counteracted only by the ridge-rib which carries
the glance toward the east end where, in the original design on any likely reconstruction,
the pattern of the apse vault would have held and focussed one’s attention. In this way
the dissonance would have been resolved above the high altar.
In the eastern transepts the sexpartite vault, in itself different from those of both
choir and aisles, is supported differently on each side. On one side three slender shafts
run up to the vault, on the other just one thicker shaft (Fig. 9). Hoey suggests that this
asymmetry is due to the different design of the piers on either side but in this case it is
not at all clear that the pier design takes precedence; when considered in relation to all
the other features it is more likely that the asymmetry was chosen for its own sake.
The aisle double arcading is syncopated and eccentric in various ways. The extent of
its eccentricity has, to my knowledge, never been fully described. There is an
extraordinary variety of squashed arches in places where the arcading comes to a halt
(Figs 10, 11). If there were just one of these it might be due to a mistake in cutting the
stones but the blocks of stone are fitted together closely, with no sign of misalignment or
re-cutting. Moreover the number and variety of them and the asymmetry they cause,
taken together with all the other eccentricities of the design, seem evidence of deliberate
intent.
Since the vaulting shafts stand a little distance in front of the arcading, they
constitute, in effect, a third layer (Fig. 12). The back of this layer is on the plane of the
wall; both layers of the double arcading are hollowed out of the depth of the wall.
Moreover this arcading originally was continued without interruption, behind the vault
28