Archaeological Journal/Volume 3/Notices of New Publications: Manuals of Gothic Architecture
An Attempt to discriminate the Styles of Architecture in England. By Thomas Rickman, Architect. Fourth edition. 8vo.
A History of all the Principal Styles of Architecture. By Edward Boid, Esq. Second edition. 12mo.
The Principles of Gothic Ecclesiastical Architecture. By Matthew Holbeche Bloxam. Eighth edition. 12mo.
Aunt Elinor's Lectures on Architecture. 12mo.
Anglican Church Architecture. By James Barr, Architect. Third edition. 12mo.
A Manual of Gothic Architecture. By F. A. Paley, M.A. 12mo.
ARCADE, ST. PETERS, NORTHAMPTON
Gothic Architecture was so long the favourite region of the imagination, where poetry and romance held undisputed sway, that a violent opposition might naturally be expected to any attempt to reduce it to the ordinary level of a science, to apply the rule and compass to it, and to trace its gradual progress step by step from the decay of Roman art to the glorious development of the complete Gothic; and though truth will prevail in the end, its progress under such circumstances was sure to be slow, and frequently thrown back for a season. The character of the extraordinary man whose genius first reduced this chaos into order, was not calculated to diminish the violence of his opponents, and the accidental circumstance of his having been brought up a quaker was perhaps likely to add to the prejudice against his system. Yet perhaps this very circumstance, and the habit engendered by it, of well weighing his words before he committed himself by expressing them, contributed to make his work more really valuable from the extreme accuracy and caution which it every where exhibits. Whatever the causes may have been, the fact is certain that he did produce a most valuable and well-considered system, and that few sciences can boast of so good an elementary treatise, more especially as a first essay on the subject; and though nearly forty years have now passed over since he first published his system in the form of lectures to crowded audiences at the Literary Institution at Liverpool, and though he lived to issue four editions of his work, each adding fresh examples in support of his views, yet no one has been able to correct any material point of his system, and it is surprising to notice how very little information has really been added to the mass which he collected with such extraordinary diligence.
It is much to be regretted that some of the active and zealous young men who so enthusiastically pursue this now fashionable study, do not imitate the industry of the humble quaker in collecting facts, and consider how much they are indebted to him for all they know of the subject, instead of taking every opportunity of expressing their contempt for his labours. Whether his nomenclature is the best that could have been invented is not now the question; his divisions of the styles are so clear and true, and the precision with which he has discriminated their characteristic features is so inimitable, that his work must always remain the basis on which all others treating of the same subject must necessarily build. This is the only excuse that can be offered for what otherwise would be the gross plagiarism manifested in all the treatises that have subsequently appeared, extending frequently to extracting many successive pages verbatim, without acknowledgment[1], and in all to the free use of his facts, his arguments, and his conclusions, without the addition of more than a mere fraction to the information he had collected. That his nomenclature presents some anomalies is not disputed, but it has been so long established, and is so generally understood by all classes, that any attempt to change it now is merely to drive us back to the chaos from which his genius has happily delivered us. We now have a language which is understood alike by employers, architects, builders, and workmen; if we attempt to change it, we shall have each of these classes using a different language, a very Babel let loose again. Nor has any better system or better nomenclature been proposed. The objections which present themselves at first sight to the new nomenclature are at least as great as those that are complained of in the established one.
Mr. Bold, in his "History of all the principal Styles of Architecture," published in 1830[2], adopted the plan of calling the three styles of Gothic merely First, Second, and Third, in order to avoid as much as possible the use of technical language in a popular work. This was perhaps more sensible than the general abuse of Rickman's technical terms with which every one has been wearied of late. But this judicious avoiding of technical language is widely different from the plan proposed by the Ecclesiologist in 1846, of adopting "First, Middle, and Third Pointed," as a new technical language, and doing away with the name of "Gothic" altogether as inappropriate, overlooking the fact that this name is applied, in the same manner as we apply it, in every language in Europe.
It is easy to shew that the objections to this proposed new nomenclature are at least as great as any that apply to Rickman's terms. In the first place the transition from Norman, or what Mr. Bloxam calls the "Semi-Norman Style,"' is unquestionably the "First Pointed Style." It is not a Gothic style, but it is Pointed. Secondly, to describe a church as having "First Pointed round-headed doorways," and " Middle Pointed square-headed windows," is more absurd than anything in Rickman. Yet such examples do occur, and that not by ones or twos, but by tens and hundreds. In some districts almost every church will be found with either Early English round-headed doorways, and sometimes pier-arches also, or with Decorated square-headed windows. In other words, it was a very common practice in the thirteenth century to use round arches with all the details of pure Gothic work, and in the fourteenth century it was still more common to use square-headed windows, often with very beautiful mouldings and details, and tracery.
Thirdly, It would be very possible to build a thoroughly good Gothic church taken entirely from fine ancient examples without a single pointed arch throughout. This is fatal to the scheme; it proves that the pointed arch is not an essential feature but an accident of that style, which by the common consent of all Europe is called Gothic, and whatever the origin of the name may have been, any attempt to change it is now too late. Another serious objection to the proposed "new nomenclature" is its vagueness and want of precision, no one can say where the first style begins or ends. Mr. Paley's Manual was expected to supply this deficiency, but it is very far from doing so. The impression which his book leaves is favourable to the writer; it is written in a good spirit, a pleasing style, and a gentlemanly tone, and contains a good deal of original observation which shews that the subject is not new to the author, though here and there he falls into the usual errors of inexperienced writers on this subject. But no one can help seeing that his own good sense and sound judgment would have led him to continue the use of the established nomenclature which every body understands, and which continually creeps in as it were unawares, and in spite of his wish to please his injudicious friends by adopting their crotchet. The natural consequence of this is that his hook is very confused and more calculated to puzzle than to assist a beginner, and that the author is not able to do justice to himself and his own knowledge. He begins his second chapter with the remark that "To suggest new methods of arrangement and new terms to express them, perhaps only tends to perplex and confuse the elements of the science; and some of those already proposed are sufficiently appropriate." But he has not firmness enough to act on this sensible opinion, being overruled by external influence, and proceeds to divide the Romanesque into four styles, and the "Gothic" into seven more: where each begins and ends it is in vain to attempt to make out, for as these distinctions are in a great degree imaginary and have no real existence, examples will continually occur in which two of his styles are so blended together in work that is evidently cotemporaneous, that any effort to separate them must be futile, and hence we suppose arises the confusion which we find in his attempt to distinguish them. Mr. Rickman's styles are so perfectly natural and true that any attempt to upset them and make fresh divisions is certain to fail when a large number of examples come to be examined in different districts. Rules which may seem good in one county will entirely fail in another. Mr. Rickman's divisions may naturally be subdivided into early and late in each style, and he always allowed for the transition from one style to another occupying a considerable period; of course many buildings being entirely of this transitional character. If the study were made more easy by multiplying names, each of these changes might have a separate name, but as we have always observed that the more names and the more divisions are made, so much the more are beginners puzzled, we deprecate their use especially in these manuals for beginners.
There is a clearness and simplicity about Mr. Rickman's system which renders it peculiarly easy to understand and to remember. A learner by his method, will be able to discriminate the style and age of a building in half the time that he could do so by Mr. Paley's or the Ecclesiologist's. Mr. Bloxam has had the good sense to retain Mr. Rickman's divisions of the styles and nomenclature, and his book continues to be the best manual for an archæologist. He is too fond of viewing all old buildings which present any anomalies as necessarily Anglo-Saxon, and he has introduced two new styles, the "Semi-Norman" and the "Debased," neither of which are properly styles at all; but on the whole his book is sensible and useful. The early editions were little more than "Rickman made easy," his language thrown into question and answer, and illustrated by Mr. Jewitt's beautiful woodcuts. The later editions however contain a good deal of original research, though too much confined to the "Anglo-Saxon style." On this subject Mr. Paley follows him implicitly, far too implicitly as we think, but we must reserve that question for another opportunity, and return for the present to Mr. Paley. His book is illustrated by some very pretty woodcuts by Williams, which are creditable to the artist, but do not exhibit the same accuracy or the same knowledge of the subject with Mr. Jewitt's; the artist has evidently engraved many of the drawings without understanding them, hence they are more pretty than valuable, but this remark applies to a part only.
The very material question, "What constitutes a distinct style of architecture," does not appear to have been much considered either by Mr. Bloxam or by Mr. Paley. A little reflection would shew that it must have certain characteristic features not possessed by any other style, and by which it may be distinguished. Apply this obvious test to Mr. Rickman's styles. The Early English style is distinguished by its characteristic mouldings, and by the general use of lancet-shaped windows. The latter feature is the popular one, but not to be depended on by itself; the mouldings however are invariable, and a never-failing test by which it may be distinguished from any other style in this country, and from the corresponding styles of other countries, the Early French, Early German, or Early Flemish: each country has its own distinct style, of which the mouldings are the only sure test. The Decorated English style is distinguished also by its characteristic mouldings, and by the geometrical or flowing form of the tracery of the windows. The second feature is again the popular one, but not alone to be relied upon, but the two together form the test. The same remarks apply more particularly to the Perpendicular style, and although in this style the vertical lines of tracery are more to be depended on, they are not by themselves the test. Let any of the proposed new styles be tried by similar tests, and no accurate detinition of them can be given. Mr. Bloxam's Anglo-Saxon style has no really characteristic features; every one of those which are popularly so considered may be found in later work also. It is probable that some of the buildings of this class do belong to the Saxon period, but they have not sufficient distinct character to form a separate style. The "Semi-Norman style" is open to the same objection: the buildings of this class are very numerous, and it may be a convenient division as a period of transition, but it has no peculiar features of its own; these buildings belong partly to one style and partly to another, intermixed in every possible variety of form and feature. The "Debased style" is open to the same objections; the buildings of the seventeenth century are often debased enough, but all the characteristics of a separate style are wanting. The proposed new styles of the Ecclesiologist and Mr. Paley are open to the same objections, they are equally incapable of any exact definition. If Mr. Rickman's definitions are to be applied to the First Pointed, Middle Pointed, and Third Pointed, the mere change of name has been already objected to. Mr. Paley's twelve styles are still more objectionable, from the endless confusion the use of them must cause. 1. 2. The Saxon period is too obscure for us to be able to define any stvle, still less to divide it into two. 4. The period of transition is not a style. C. "Late or Florid First Pointed, 1240 to 1270." This wants the clear lines of definition; the pure Early English style continued throughout this period, without any marked difference in the mouldings, and although the windows become larger and have foliated circles, &c. in the head, yet this difference alone is not sufficient to form a separate style. 7. "Geometric Middle Pointed," and 8. "Complete Middle Pointed."
Howden, Yorkshire.
Mr. Paley may be able to make all these nice distinctions himself, but few will be able to follow him, and those who have studied the subject a much longer time, and perhaps quite as deeply as Mr. Paley, do not agree with him as to the expediency of these divisions, nor yet as to the precise point where each should begin and end, neither will history bear him out as to the dates which he has assumed. He acknowledges that, "With respect to the dates of each it is quite impossible to lay down more than a very general scheme," and quotes with approbation these sensible observations. "Professor Willis is of opinion that in each style we must presume the existence of Imitation and Transition specimens, and that at the same period of time, and in the same country, buildings may have been in progress, some in the old style, some in the new, others in every possible gradation between them. For when any new style is invented in the country where it appears, we shall inevitably trace it in transition; wherever it is brought in complete, and adopted in works of considerable magnitude, it becomes as it were a rival, and is likely to be more or less closely followed by the native architects; though many of these, through preference of their old fashion or ignorance of the new, may go on building in a style half a century behind others. Thus it must be expected that many perplexing anomalies will occur to us in attempting to assign dates, which in fact would be inexplicable on any other theory. Still on the whole each country had its characteristic development[3]."
All this is very true and very important within due limitations, but is it not a fatal objection to such minute subdivision of styles?—If we are to make three separate styles in each century, and also to acknowledge that one builder may be half a century behind others at the same time, how are we ever to remember the succession of styles, or judge of the age of a building which may have been built in the "style before the last." The simple old-fashioned plan of describing buildings by the reigns of the different Kings, is far less objectionable than all these new styles. The style of Henry the Third or of Edward the Third is more easy to remember and as well defined as these new distinctions, Mr. Rickman's broad divisions are natural, easy, and obvious, and those who wish for more minute divisions may readily make them by adding early or late in the style, or the name of the king in whose reign that division was most in use.
With regard to foreign countries, it must be borne in mind that Normandy and a considerable part of France formed part of the English dominions at the time the change of style took place, and many of the finest French cathedrals are acknowledged by the French themselves to have been "built by the English," that is by the Anglo-Normans. In other foreign countries the distinction is far greater, and sufficiently great to make it desirable to distinguish them by the names of their respective countries. Mr. Paley observes that "both the Early English and the Third Pointed, or Perpendicular, are peculiar to our country. The corresponding or synchronous continental styles are the geometrical Decorated, and the Flamboyant. But at Norrez and Ardenne, near Caen, Professor Whewell found as perfect and genuine 'Early English' churches as our country can supply." The chapel of the seminary at Bayeux is another example of pure and good Early English work; though even in these buildings the mouldings partake of a French character.
The following remarks on symbolism are proofs of Mr. Paley's good sense, when he has firmness enough to use it, and free himself from the influence of his ingenious but fanciful friends. "Much as has been said on the subject of symbolism[4], and undiscovered laws of Gothic architecture, we are strongly disposed to attribute the almost unattainable perfection of the medieval buildings to the unerring judgment, fine taste, and intuitive feeling of the artists, who built religiously, not coerced by utilitarian employers, and, above all, devoted exclusively to the one style prevalent in their day, without so much as the knowledge of any other, and without any care to imitate their predecessors in anything."
The use of corbel-heads in ascertaining the date of a building by the costume of the head-dress has often been pointed out: the difficulty is in knowing accurately the exact period during which a particular head-dress continued in use. For instance, Mr. Paley says, "It may be useful to observe, that the head-dress of a square form is a certain evidence of the transition, and fixes the date of a building to about the year 1375. The nave and chancel of Ryhall church, Rutland, are of this style, and marked by this peculiar dripstone termination." But unfortunately at p. 297 this head-dress is described, and the date of 1420 assigned to it. And at p. 176 the same square-topped head-dress is engraved, and said to be of the time of Edward the Third, side by side with another female head, having the chin-cloth or wimple, which was worn in the time of Edward the First. This confusion very much destroys the utility of corbel-heads as a guide for beginners in an elementary work which this is evidently intended to be, but for which purpose it is not suited. There is much to please in the book, but it is calculated only for advanced students. The concluding chapter on Monumental Brasses is from the pen of C. R. Manning, Esq., of Benet College, and is a very good concise account of this interesting class of monuments. We cannot take leave of Mr. Paley without thanking him for the pleasure his book has afforded us on the whole, though we have been obliged to differ from him on many points, and regret that its general utility should be so much impeded by attempts at originality without sufficient consideration.
Of Mr. Bloxam's book we have already said that the later editions are greatly improved, and we repeat that it now forms the best manual for archæologists in this interesting branch of study. Our objections to the two new styles which he has introduced are rather of extent than of kind; we think he goes too far, that the differences do not amount to a separate Style, though we do not deny that there are considerable differences between these buildings and the regular Styles.
On the Saxon question we think that neither he nor any of his followers have paid sufficient attention to the masonry and construction of these buildings; nor has much additional light been thrown on the subject since the researches of Mr. Rickman and Mr. Twopeny, neither of whom considered the anomalies which they were the first to notice as having sufficient character to form a separate Style.
It is true that in some of these buildings the masonry is rude enough, and the construction is more that of carpenters than of masons; and it is probable that these examples are really of the Saxon period; but in other instances, such as Daglingworth, the masonry is better than that of the transepts of Winchester, and quite as good as that of the tower rebuilt after it had fallen "from imperfect construction[5]." The fineness of the joints between the stones in ashlar work is a ready test by which to judge of the quality and probable age of the masonry; and thus tried, many of the supposed Saxon structures must be considered to have been built after 1100, when, as Mr. Bloxam himself shews (p. 101) from William of Malmesbury (lib. v.), fine-jointed masonry was first used in England by Roger bishop of Salisbury.
St. Benet's, Cambridge.
In other instances the rude cubical masses found in the place of capitals to the chancel-arch, which have been assumed as characteristics of this supposed style, have every appearance of being simply the blocks put up by the masons for the purpose of having the capitals carved out of them, but by some accident, or want of funds, left unfinished; for instance, at Wittering the arches between the nave and aisle have regular Norman capitals, any one of which might have been carved out of the rude blocks left at the chancel-arch. And Mr. Bloxam states (p. 113) that it was very customary to carve the capitals after the blocks were fixed in their places, as the crypt at Canterbury clearly proves, for they are there to be found in almost every stage of their progress, and some of the sculpture must have been done long after they were erected. In the later styles he also notices the same thing. "We sometimes meet with square Corbel Blocks, and other work of an intended decorative description, the design for the sculpture of which has never been carried into effect." As at Crick, Northamptonshire. &c. p. 231. We have only to apply this remark to Norman works, and one class of the anomalies supposed to be Saxon disappears. Others, such as the capital or impost of St. Benet's, Cambridge, have much more the appearance of late Norman or transition works, than of the Saxon age.
Darent church, Kent.
We cannot understand upon what ground Mr. Bloxam considers the ruined church in the castle at Dover as some centuries older than Darent church, Kent, which is a good example of early Norman work, and has quite as early a character as the ruins at Dover; though these have some Roman remains worked up in them belonging to an earlier building, the present structure has nothing to distinguish it from work of the twelfth century.
It is worthy of remark that many of these structures are mixed up with late Norman and transition work, in a manner that seems almost unaccountable if the Saxon theory were admitted. Daglingworth has a lancet window in the chancel in the original wall without any appearance of insertion, and the same thing occurs also at Wittering, and in several other instances. These objections to the theory should be fairly stated and examined.
After all, this supposed style is a very immaterial point, of no practical importance, though very interesting for archæological discussion. Mr. Bloxam's description of the characteristic features of the regular styles is good and clear, and his illustrations extremely beautiful, and as good as their small size will admit, though we could have wished the drawings to have been more correct in some instances. The manner in which Mr. Jewitt has preserved the spirit of Early English foliage in the capitals from York and Durham is highly creditable to his skill. The foliage from Salisbury and Lincoln is also beautifully engraved, and Mr. Bloxam's description of it is good and accurate. "Sculptured foliage of this era is much used in capitals, brackets, corbels, bosses, and crockets, and is generally called stiff-leaved, a term not applying so much to the formality of design or execution, which are frequently very elegant, and done with much freedom of hand, as to designate a kind of crisp foliage in which the stiff stems as well as the leaves are used in the composition. In this it chiefly differs from the later styles, where we see an approximation to nature, and the foliage appears of a much thinner and more flexible texture, evincing a greater freedom both in conception and execution. This is particularly observable where the thick stems rise from the mouldings and support the foliage above. Among the forms of foliage the trefoil is most predominant, and very characteristic of the style." (See the cuts opposite.)
EARLY ENGLISH CAPITALS AND FOLIAGE. | ||
DURHAM CATHEDRAL. |
YORK CATHEDRAL. | |
SALISBURY CATHEDRAL. |
LINCOLN CATHEDRAL. | |
DECORATED FOLIAGE | ||
|
| |
YORK CATHEDRAL. | ||
"The foliage of Decorated capitals may generally be distinguished from those of Early English by its not rising from the neck-moulding with stiff stems, but being carried round the bell in something of a wreath-like form. The foliage itself, whether of capitals, finials, crockets, bosses, or other ornamental accessories, exhibits much of natural freedom, and we frequently find the oak, the ivy, the hazel, the vine, the fern, &c. very beautifully and closely copied from the natural leaves; the oak in particular seems to have been an especial favourite. The leaves are luxuriantly expanded, gracefully disposed, and sculptured with great boldness and freedom; they are sufficiently distinct from the foliage of the succeeding style, which, though frequently most elaborate, has still in general a certain formality of outline which renders it very inferior in grace and beauty to the Decorated."
DECORATED DOOR, ADDERBURY CHURCH, OXFORDSHIRE.
"The north door of Adderbury is particularly fine; the jambs are finished with rich crocketed canopies, from which the arch springs; the dripstone is ornamented with a moulding resembling a fir-cone, and within this is a beautiful modification of the tooth-ornament, which is here converted into a knot of ivy-leaves and other foliage: the inner mouldings are ornamented with the oak and vine leaves, and within this is the four-leaved flower. Many doorways are without shafts, and the jambs are composed of a series of quarter round and semi-cylindrical mouldings, which have often a square-edged fillet running vertically up the face, and these are all continuous with the architrave mouldings."
The Decorated roof at Adderbury is a very good specimen, and especially useful at this time, when timber roofs of the earlier styles are much wanted, by calling attention to the existence of many of them unnoticed in our country churches, where they are daily being destroyed under the influence of the present mania for the restoration of our old churches, which is only another name for the total destruction of their original character; and more mischief is being clone under this delusion than ever the Puritans did with their axes and their hammers: they left evidence against themselves of the mischief they had done, but our modern "restorers" leave nothing by which we can tell what they have destroyed: their first step is to obliterate every vestige of the old work, before they begin to build up their own "improvement."
EARLY ENGLISH MOULDINGS, TEMPLE CHURCH, LONDON.
EARLY ENGLISH CORBEL TABLE, BEVERLEY MINSTER.
We have scarcely allowed space to notice Mr. Barr's unpretending and useful little book, but not much will be required, his own description of it disarms criticism. "This little work is intended to serve merely as an introduction to the study of the ecclesiastical edifices of this country, and at the same time to afford a simple and practical guide to those who are engaged in the erection or restoration of churches." These purposes it is well calculated to serve. The first half of the book is occupied in describing the different parts of an Anglican church as they should be, and though some may be disposed to cavil at the quiet manner in which Mr. Barr assumes that his views of what they ought to be are unquestionable, we are disposed to think he is right; an elementary work should not be controversial. The latter half describes the styles, dividing them into centuries to avoid the use of technical terms. His descriptions of the characteristics of each century are concise and clear, and his selection of woodcuts, especially of the mouldings, very well suited to render them familiar to the eye. Perhaps if he had been content to refer to the "Glossary of Architecture," instead of borrowing from it, he would have been, less open to the charge of appearing in borrowed plumes. The number of his original cuts would have been sufficient to give his work a very respectable appearance, some of them being as good as any in the other works before us; for instance, the Norman arcade at St. Peter's, Northampton, which we have borrowed at p. 379; the Early English corbel-table at Beverley (see p. 391); the Decorated pinnacle at Howden (see p. 384); and the Perpendicular tower at Dundry.
PERPENDICULAR TOWER. DUNDRY, NEAR BRISTOL.
Note.—In the "Notices of the Priory of Southwick," p. 222 of this volume, the seal of the prior of Chertsey was accidentally inserted instead of the Southwick seal, which will be given in a future number.
- ↑ See "Aunt Elinor's Lectures on Architecture," which however is a useful little book for children.
- ↑ This slight and superficial work has already passed into merited oblivion. The idea was a good one, but the execution of it very indifferent.
- ↑ This is not sufficiently attended to by modern architects; even Mr. Pugin has set the dangerous example of foreignising in his churches and their decorations. True it is that in the middle ages improvements were frequently borrowed from the continent. But this is worse than needless now, for we have better ancient models of our own to follow than can be procured from abroad. This is admitted by Mr. Petit, "Remarks," &c. vol. i. p. 13.—See Rickman, p. 37.
- ↑ See chap. iv. of Mr. Poole's "Churhes, their Structure, Arrangement, and Decoration." The philosophizing theories of the late translators of Durandus, and Mr. Lewis's treatise on this subject, seem to have much of fanciful and questionable conjecture, amidst some undoubted truth.
- ↑ It is worthy of remark that cotemporary writers mention the fall of a great number of towers immediately after they were built in the early Norman period, and as the great superiority of the Norman masonry is acknowledged, the probability is that any buildings which exhibit better masonry, with finer joints than we find in early Norman work, are of later rather than earlier date.