Footnotes

LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,

STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

Footnotes

1. Similar buildings at Bergamo, Brescia, and Monza are illustrated in Mr. Street’s beautiful work on the architecture of the North of Italy, from which the two last illustrations are borrowed.

2. In the Bodleian in Oxford is a MS. of the 14th century containing a view of the Piazzetta, engraved in Yule’s ‘Marco Polo,’ Introduction, p. xlviii., in which the outer wall of the building is shown resting on the inner wall of the arcade. This would suggest either that in Ziani’s building the upper wall was set back or that some subsequent changes were made in the two parts, of which, however, there is no record.

3. So called from its having been, according to Signor Boni (see Transactions R.I.B.A., vol. iii., new series, 1887), richly decorated with colour and gilding.

4. The same drawing shows that a calle or small street existed on the west, or left-hand side, as well as on the east, and the enriched work carved by Giovanni Bon, stonecutter (the architect of the Porta delle Carta of the Ducal Palace), was to extend along the whole front facing the Grand Canal and ten feet at each end down the two streets.

5. ‘Architecture Moderne de la Sicile,’ fol. Paris, 1826-30.

6. ‘Del Duomo di Monreale e di altre Chiese Siculo-Normane,’ fol. Palermo, 1838.

7. ‘Normans in Sicily,’ 8vo. text, fol. plates, London, 1838.

8. Part I. Bk. III. ch. 2.

9. For a complete description of the same, see ‘The Architectural History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem,’ by Prof. Willis, 1849, the publications of the Palestine Exploration Fund, and the ‘Holy Places of Jerusalem,’ by Prof. Hayter Lewis.

10. Eusebius, ‘Vita Constantini,’ lib. iii. ch. xxviii.

11. Sæwulf, ‘Peregrinatio,’ &c. (A.D.1102-3), p. 83.

12. A section of the church is given in Prof. Willis’s work compiled partly from Bernardino’s work (‘Trattato delle Piante al Imagini de sacri Edifizi di Terra Sancta,’ 1620), corrected by dimension taken by Mr. J. J. Scoles and partly from models in the British Museum and elsewhere.

13. This plan has been worked out from the ordnance survey made in 1864-65 by Sir Ch. Wilson and from Professor Willis’s plan as published in his work.

14. Quaresimus, ‘Elucidatio,’ ii. p. 386.

15. All these are carefully described and delineated by Count de Vogüé, in his beautiful work entitled, ‘Les Églises de la Terre Sainte,’ Paris, 1860.

16. A small chart of the same sort has been published by M. de Caumont,[17]which, though an improvement, still leaves much to be desired; but until every church is examined, and every typical specimen at least published, it is impossible to mark out more than the general features of the chart. Imperfect, however, as they are in this one, they are still more numerous and more detailed than it will be easy for us to follow and to trace out in the limited space of this work.

17. ‘Abécédaire d’Architecture,’ p. 174.

18. The use of this term is a little awkward, at first from its having another meaning in English; it has, however, been long used by English etymologists to distinguish the Romance languages, such as Italian, Spanish, and French, from those of Teutonic origin, and is here used in precisely the same sense as applied to architecture—to those styles derived from the Roman, but one degree more removed from it than the early phase of the Romanesque.

19. There seems to be some doubt about the age of the pointed arches in the mosque of Amrû; the earliest authenticated arches of that form are found in the Nilometer in the island of Roda which is fixed by Mr. Lane as 861A.D., eighteen years older than that of Tulûn.—Ed.

20. For the detail of the argument I must refer the reader to a paper read by me to the Institute of British Architects on June 18th, 1849, and published in the ‘Builder,’ and other papers of the time. See also a paper read in the same place in the following month (July, 1849), by Sir Gardner Wilkinson.

21. The Scotch and Irish Celts seem to have had a conception of this truth, and in both these countries we find some bold attempts at true stone roofs: the influence, however, of the Gothic races overpowered them, and the mixed roof became universal.

22. Laborde, ‘Monuments de la France,’ vol. i. p. 92, plates cxv. and cxvi.

23. [A valuable and well-illustrated work, entitled ‘The Architecture of Provence and the Riviera, Edinburgh, 1888,’ by Mr. David MacGibbon, has since added to our knowledge in this respect. Mr. MacGibbon accepts the date of 12th century for the Church of St. Paul-Trois-Châteaux, and attributes its Roman character to ancient work in the provinces.—Ed.]

24. Wood’s ‘Letters of an Architect,’ vol. i. p. 163.

25. These are all illustrated more or less completely by Renouvier, ‘Monuments de Bas Languedoc.’ Montpellier, 1840.

26. M. Verneilh, in his work “Architecture Byzantine en France,” 4to, Paris, 1851, based his arguments chiefly on the supposition that it was copied from St. Mark’s, Venice. The discoveries to which we have already referred (p. 530, vol. I.) prove that the latter was not built till 1063-71, so that it follows that a much later date must be given to St. Front, unless the latter be, like St. Mark’s, a copy of the church of the Apostles at Constantinople. Against this supposition there remains the fact that the churches of St. Mark, Venice, and St. Front, Périgueux, are identical in their dimensions if we replace Italian feet by French feet. There is also a record quoted by Mr. Gailhabaud that the original church of St. Front was destroyed by fire in 1120; but the existing church is entirely built in incombustible material, and therefore it would seem to be more probable that a much later date, viz. 1120-1140, must be given to it. It should however be taken into account that St. Front is generally accepted as the prototype of all the domed churches in France, so that if any of its successors could be proved to have an earlier date our argument would fall to the ground. So far as the architectural details of the church are concerned they have more the character of the 12th than of the 11th century, and the introduction of the pointed arch at so early a date seems improbable, except so far as the pointed barrel vault is concerned, the necessity for which was pointed out on page46.

27. This building is well illustrated in Turner’s ‘Domestic Architecture.’

28. See a paper on this church by Mr. Street, in 1861, read to the Institute of British Architects. (R. I. B. A. Transactions, 1860-61.)

29. ‘Histoire Générale de Bourgogne,’ 4 vols. fol., Dijon, 1739; p. 81.

30. “Style Latin” is the name generally adopted for this style by the French architects.

31. From a paper by Mr. Parker on this subject, read to the Institute of British Architects.

32. This arrangement is known by the name ofhexapartite, orsexapartite, because the compartment of the vault having been divided into four by the great diagonal arches crossing one another in the centre (which was thequadripartitearrangement), two of the four quarters were again divided by the arch thrown across from one intermediate pillar to the other, thus making six divisions in all, though no longer all of equal dimensions, as in the quadripartite method. Both these arrangements are shown in plan on Woodcut No.612.

33. The Church of St. Rémi at Rheims ought perhaps to be treated as an exception to this assertion: it has, however, been so much altered in more modern times as almost to have lost its original character. It nevertheless retains the outlines of a vast and noble basilica of the early part of the 11th century, presenting considerable points of similarity to those of Burgundy.

34. It is in the vaulting of the choir aisle of St. Denis that we find the earliest example of the new value of the pointed arch rib: four independent ribs rise to the centre of the aisle, it being no longer necessary to place the opposite ribs in the same plane. M. Louis Gonse in his ‘L’Art Gothique,’ however, points out one or two earlier examples such as the churches of Morienval and Bellefontaine, both in the Oise Department; the latter only is dated—1125; but no illustrations of the vault are given. The former is so crude in its design that it is probably earlier, and it is in fact evident from the perfection shown in St. Denis that many previous experiments must have been made, examples of which it would be interesting to trace.—Ed.

35. These generally consisted of strong iron bars, wrought into patterns in accordance with the design painted on the glass.

36. Royal Academy lectures, delivered in 1881, by G. E. Street, R.A., Professor of Architecture.

37. It should be noted that the last bay of the nave and the first bay of the choir are wider than any of the other bays, and this gives an increased dimension to the aisles of north and south transepts, which contributes in no slight degree to the effect of vastness given to this part of the church.—Ed.

38. The height of the old spire is 342 ft. 6 in. with the cross; of the new, 371 ft.

39. The choir of Beauvais is considered to be one of the four wonders of mediæval France, the others being the south spire of Chartres, the porch of Rheims and the nave of Amiens.

40. ‘Compte Rendu des Travaux de la Commission des Monuments,’ &c.: Rapport présenté au Préfet de la Gironde, 1848 et seq.

41. A plan of the Sainte Chapelle will be found further on (page395) when comparing it with St. Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster.

42. Mr. Beresford Hope, in his ‘English Cathedrals of the XIXth Century,’ contends that this church was only commenced in 1419; and also maintains that the west front was completed by an English architect named Patrick in 1429. If this were so, we must abandon all our chronology founded on style. It is all a mistake if the east end is not a century earlier. I am, however, unwilling to go to school again, on the faith of a little pamphlet published by a French curé in a remote village.

43. The earlier form is found retained at Noyon, at Paris, and in most of the churches of the 12th century; but in the first years of the 13th it gave place to the second, and was not afterwards revived.

44. See Introduction, page 29, Woodcut No. 4.

45. The French antiquaries employ this word as if it signified a pointed arch, whence they designate the style itself asogival. There is no doubt, however, that the word has nothing to do with the form of the arch or the ogee, but is the name of a rib common to the round-arched as well as to the pointed style.

46. See Woodcuts Nos.621,629,641, &c.

47. This was taken down in 1856 to relieve the piers of the tower which were being crushed owing to their defective construction. After the rebuilding of the piers in 1856-59, a poorly designed Gothic lantern was substituted.—Ed.

48. M. Viollet le Duc’s ‘Dictionnaire d’Architecture’ contains several hundred examples of these minor architectural details of French Mediæval architecture. All are there drawn with skill, and engraved with exquisite taste. They form a wonderful illustration of the exuberance of fancy and fertility of invention of the French architects in those days. The limits of this work do not admit of more than a mere passing allusion to this most fascinating subject.

49. Viollet le Duc, in his ‘Architecture Militaire,’ p. 96, gives a section of the Donjon at Coucy, which, however, by no means explains how the interior was lighted, nor does it accord with what I believe I saw there.

50. A beautiful drawing of this façade to a very large scale still exists in the town-hall of the city, as well as a model in stone, from which the intended effect may be seen.

51. A large work was commenced a few years ago on the church at Bois le Duc; but after the first numbers it seems to have been discontinued, and has not been since heard of—in this country at least. [Since this was written a fine work in 8 vols., entitled ‘Documents classés de l’art dans les Pays-Bas du xmeau xviiimeSiècle,’ and illustrated with ink photos, has been compiled by M. Van Ysendyck; and although the greater number of the plates represent Renaissance work, some of the finest flamboyant Gothic buildings, both in Belgium and Holland, are there reproduced.—Ed.]

52. See two papers on this subject in ‘Jahrbuch der Central Commission zur Erhaltung der Baudenkmale,’ vol. ii. p. 65, and vol. iii. p. 149.

53. The work of F. Östen on the architecture of Lombardy, and that of Geier and Görtz on the style in the Rhine country, combined with the works of Boisserée, have already furnished considerable materials for such a history. Both these first-named works were left incomplete, the former from the death of the author, the latter owing to the late troubles of the country.

54. See vol. i. p. 513.

55. All the particulars regarding this church are taken from Hübsch, ‘Altchristliche Bauwerke,’ pp. 109, xlix. Dohme ascribes the church to the 11th century, and gives the length as 283 ft.

56. That shown in the woodcut is a suggestion of Dr. Hübsch.

57. If there are any remains of the monastic buildings at Reichenau it is extremely desirable that they should be examined, in order to see how far they accord with the St. Gall plan. What if it should turn out to be a perfected plan of Reichenau sent after its completion by the abbot Heiton to his friend Gospertus?

58. ‘Histoire de l’Architecture Sacrée du 4meau 10meSiècle dans les Évêchés de Genève, Lausanne, et Sion,’ 1853.

59. The earliest example is found in the Baptistery at Ravenna, 396A.D.

60. Kallenbach, (‘Deutsche Baukunst,’) states that it was built by Bishop Garibald, 740-752. It is the chapel on the north side of cloisters of Cathedral (see ‘King’s Study Book,’ vol ii. p. 81).

61. At Aquileja, at the upper end of the Adriatic Gulf, Poppo, the archbishop, between the years 1019-1042, erected a building almost identical with this in every respect between the old basilica and the baptistery, so as to make a double-apse church out of the old Lombard arrangement. The similarity of the two buildings may probably bring down the date of that at Ratisbon to the 10th century.

62. ‘Baukunst des Mittelalters in Sachsen.’

63. The church was burnt in 937, and is said to have had two choirs (addedc.816 by Abbot Engil), a western transept, and eleven bays to the nave.

64. It is by no means clear that there were not six pillars originally separating the nave from the aisles instead of the four now built into the piers of the Gothic church.

65. Taken from R. Dohme, ‘Geschichte der Deutschen Baukunst.’ Berlin, 1887.

66. Möller, ‘Deutsche Baukunst,’ vol. i. plate vi.

67. This has been entirely rebuilt, with a modern front.—Ed.

68. For a description of this abbey see a paper read by Mr. Charles Fowler (R. I. B. A. Transactions, 1882-83).

69. [Much has been said with regard to the use of double churches and chapels in Germany. In the cases of the chapels at Eger, Goslar, Nuremberg, Lohra, Landsberg, Freiburg on the Unstrutt, Coburg, Steinfurt, and Vianden, it is apparent, as they were in connection with a castle or palace, that the Emperor (or Prince) with his retinue could enter the upper chapel by a connecting gallery from the palace. But Schwartz Rheindorf is so much larger than any other double church or chapel known, that it would seem probable the object of the upper church was to provide a place of worship for the inhabitants in the case of floods, which in early times must have taken place yearly: admission being obtained through a door on N. side, the sill of which is about 8 ft. from ground, and communicates with a stair-case leading to upper church.—Ed.]

70. The building is as yet practically unedited, notwithstanding its importance in the history of architecture. I have myself examined this edifice, but in too hurried a manner to enable me to supply the deficiency. I speak, therefore, on the subject with diffidence.

71. Taken from Schayes’ ‘Histoire de l’Architecture en Belgique,’ vol. ii. p. 18, taken by him, I believe, from Lassaulx.

72. See paper by Mr. Petit in the ‘Archæological Journal,’ vol. xviii. p. 110.

73. Boisserée, ‘Nieder Rhein,’ p. 36.

74. There is a slight error in the scale of this plan, the artist in reducing it having used the scale of French instead of English feet. It ought to be 1-16th larger.

75. The bestrésuméof the arguments on this question will be found in the controversy carried on by F. de Verneilh, the Baron de Rosier, and M. Boisserée, in Didron’s ‘Annales Archéologiques,’ vol. vii.et seq.

76. Within the last few years also the cathedral has been isolated on all sides, so that it has now the appearance of an overgrown monster—Ed.

77. From the ‘Jahrbuch der Central Commission zur Erhaltung der Baudenkmale,’ vol. ii. p. 37.

78. See ‘Mittelalterliche Kunstdenkmale Östereichs,’ vol. i. p. 171.

79. The façade designed for the cathedral at Louvain (mentioned p.196) was identical with this group of spires in arrangement, though on a much larger scale, and infinitely richer in ornament.

80. Mr. Hodder Westropp was, I believe, the first to suggest this identity of the Round Towers with these “Fanals,” or Lanternes des Mortes. It seems to be the most plausible suggestion yet made, though far from meeting the whole difficulty.

81. ‘Denkmäler der Baukunst in Ermeland.’ Berlin.

82. Mr. Tavenor Perry, in his paper on the ‘Mediæval Architecture in Sweden’ (R.I.B.A. Transactions, vol. vii. new series, 1891), points out that the architecture of the choir is of much earlier date than Étienne de Bonnueill’s advent, that the foundation was laid in 1258, and already in 1273 was well advanced. He takes objection also to the assumed French origin of the plan, which is more like German work. The plan bears some resemblance to the chevet of Westminster Abbey, the lady-chapel of which, pulled down by Henry VII., was commenced in 1220 by Henry III. There are only five chapels, as in Westminster Abbey, and they are of greater width than any French examples. Étienne’s work was probably confined to the three great portals, though Mr. Perry believes that he did much to improve the design, and probably helped to “found a new school of sculptors.”—Ed.

83. ‘The Priory of St. Mary Overie, Southwark.’ F. T. Dollman, London, 1881.

84. These churches are nearly all brick: those of Lund and Linköping are in stone.

85. Both in design and purpose this circular part of Trondhjem Cathedral is an exact counterpart of Becket’s Crown at Canterbury. That was erected as a baptistery and burial-place for the archbishops, and seems to have been afterwards incorporated in the cathedral,more Francorum.

86. The octagonal dome on the east end has been lately restored, but not improved.—Ed.

87. The plan and elevation are taken from a description of the church by Steen Friis, published at Copenhagen, 1851. In both cuts the modern additions are omitted.

88. It has lately been well restored (1881).—Ed.

89. Gothland was Christianized by St. Olaf in 1028; the first churches, in wood, were soon burnt down, and the earliest stone examples now known are those of Akebäch and Ala, which date from 1149.

90. An elevation and section of the church by Mr. Haig is given in the R. I. B. A. Transactions, new series, vol. ii.

91. Two examples are pointed out by Mr. Carpenter (R.I.B.A. Transactions, new series, vol. ii. 1886) as existing in England, viz.: Hannington Church, Northamptonshire, and Caythorpe Church, Lincolnshire.

92. ‘One Year in Sweden,’ Murray, 1862.

93. ‘The Ecclesiology of Gothland and the Churches of Bornholm,’ by Major Alfred Heales, F.S.A., 1889.

94. Two in Zealand—Storehedinge and Biernede; one in Funen—Horne, at Faaborg; one in Jutland—Thorsager; and four in Bornholm—Oester Larsker, Nykers, Ols, and Ny. (Vol. ii. p. 49.)

95. Documentary evidence now establishes the fact that the nave of Waltham Abbey was Harold’s original work, though subsequently enriched by carving.

96. This has been restored, as far as the materials admit, by Professor Willis, in his ‘Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral,’ published in 1845.

97. “Qui ecclesiam in orientali parte majoris ecclesiæ eidem pene contiguam in honore Beati Johannis Baptistæ fabricavit; ut et Baptisteria et examinationes Judiciorum, &c.—et Archiepiscoporum corpora in eâ sepelirentur.”—‘Anglia Sacra,’ vol. ii. p. 75.

98. The internal dimensions of Durham Cathedral are 413·10 feet, exclusive of the Galilee. The nave is 81 feet wide, the choir, 77·2. (Billings.)

99. The proper effect of this part of Ely Cathedral has been seriously marred by the erection of the new reredos. In itself a fair specimen of modern Gothic, it is placed so far from the choir as to lose its proper effect. It is painfully dwarfed by the large plain area in front of it. But worse than this, it cuts up and destroys the most beautiful presbytery in England after the Angel Choir at Lincoln. The architects of Walsingham’s time glazed two compartments of the triforium to throw light upon the principal object in the choir, which was intended to stand two bays farther forward. It would have been well if the 19th-century restorers had taken the hint.

100. The foundations of the Lady Chapel of Henry III. were found a few years ago almost at the extreme east end of Henry VII.’s Chapel, so that it can scarcely be said to have formed part of a circlet.

101. It should be remembered, however, that the first addition, made in 1220, was the original Lady Chapel; when Henry III. determined to rebuild the church and to adopt the plan of the French chevet, the width of the other chapels would seem to have been governed by that of the Lady Chapel. This, however, was 30 ft. wide—much greater than any French chapel. To complete the ring, therefore, he was obliged to carry them further west, so that the five chapels occupy a space equal in comparison to the seven chapels of Amiens, where the width of each is only 25 ft. A comparison of the two chevets will show how ingenious was the English arrangement; and as the vaulting is essentially English in its setting out and in its design, it is only the idea of the plan which was borrowed. On this subject Mr. Street remarks, p. 426 (‘Lectures on English Architecture,’ Memoir of G. E. Street, R.A., by A. E. Street, M.A. 1883), “Here the evidence of the building itself seems to be conclusive that the king had resolved to build a church after the model of the great French churches, but employed an English architect to design it, and he made his plan on lines which are distinct and different from those of any French church.”

102. The roofs here alluded to must not be confounded with the barn-like roofs of remote village churches which modern architects are so fond of copying, but such roofs as that of St. Stephen’s Chapel, and many of those of the Lancastrian era.

103. This, and a considerable number of the woodcuts in this chapter, are borrowed from the plates of the beautiful series of ‘Handbooks of the English Cathedrals,’ published by Mr. Murray. In order to prevent needless repetition, they are marked Cath. Hb.

104. This has already been explained in the chapters on French architecture, especially at pages114and169.

105. In Woodcut No.822the right-hand bay is that of the nave generally, the left-hand bay is adapted to the greater width of the aisle of the transept, and is less pleasingly proportioned in consequence. Woodcuts Nos.822and823are drawn to the scale of 25 feet to 1 inch, or double that usually employed for elevations in this work.

106. It is not necessary to repeat here what was said on the subject in speaking of French tracery, p.164, to which the reader is referred.

107. This was not so much the case in Paris and Rouen, where the houses were carried up to a much greater height than in other towns.—Ed.

108. A splendid chance of trying the effect of this occurred a few years ago, when it was determined to restore the lantern, as a memorial to Dr. Peacock. In a fit of purism, only the ugly temporary arrangement was made new. It looked venerable before the recent repairs; now that it is quite new again, it is most unpleasing.

109. The towers of Lincoln were surmounted by three spires, removed about 100 years ago.

110. The central octagon of the Parliament Houses is 65 ft. in diameter, and is the best specimen of a modern Gothic dome which has been attempted.

111. A chapel, properly speaking, is a hall designed for worship, without any separation between classes. A church has a chancel for the clergy, a nave for the laity. A cathedral has these and attached chapels and numerous adjuncts which do not properly belong to either of the other two.

112. Few things of its class are more to be regretted than the destruction of this beautiful relic in rebuilding the Parliament Houses. It would have been cheaper to restore it, and infinitely more beautiful when restored than the present gallery which takes its place. It is sad, too, to think that nothing has been done to reproduce its beauties. When the colleges of Exeter at Oxford, or St. John’s, Cambridge, were rebuilding their chapels, it would have been infinitely better to reproduce this exquisite specimen of English art than the models of French chapels which have been adopted.The work on St. Stephen’s Chapel, published for the Woods and Forests by Mr. Mackenzie, is rendered useless by the addition of an upper storey which never existed.

The work on St. Stephen’s Chapel, published for the Woods and Forests by Mr. Mackenzie, is rendered useless by the addition of an upper storey which never existed.

113. The Sainte Chapelle was commenced 1244, and finished 1248. The works of St. Stephen’s were commenced apparently 1292, but were not finished till 1348.

Back to Index Next