THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM LIBRARY

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from Getty Research Institute

https://archive.org/details/architecturalrev1314unse

Supplement to The Architectural Review, January 1903

' INK-PHOTO." K. J. EVERETT & SONS, 56 LUDGATE HILL, E.C.

THE LAST OF NEWGATE. DRAWN BY MUIRKEAD BONE.

THE

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW

Volume Thirteen Jan.— June

1 9°3

London

6, Great New Street, Fetter Lane, E.C.

The Architectural Review ” Editorial Committee.

4 4

R. Norman Shaw, R.A.

John Belcher, A.R.A., F.R.I.B.A. Frank T. Baggallay, F.R.I.B.A. Reginald Blomfield, M.A.

Gerald C. Horsley.

Mervyn Macartney.

E. J. May.

Walter Millard.

Ernest Newton.

Edward S. Prior, M.A.

Halsey Ricardo.

Professor F. M. Simpson, F.R.I.B.A Leonard Stokes, F.R.I.B.A.

D. S. MacColl, M.A.

J. H. Elder-Duncan, Secretary.

INDEX TO VOLUME THIRTEEN.

PAGE

Abingdon ... ... ... ... ... ••• Rev. W . J . Loftie ... ... ... i

Illustrations : — Plans. Abbey Buildings, i. Map of Part of Abingdon, showing the Buildings Illustrated, 2. Remains of the Abbey Buildings, from the North-East, 4. Ground Floor, Abbey Buildings, 5. Interior, Long Abbey Building, 1st Floor, 6. Thirteenth Century Fireplace in Upper Floor of Abbey Building, 7. Thirteenth Century Chimney, 8. S. Helen's Wharf, 9. S. Helen’s Church, 10. Christ's Hospital, 11. T witty’s Alms¬ houses, 12 Tomkin's Almshouse, 13. Fountain in Wall of House, Ock Street, 13. The Market House, 15.

Plans of Market House, 16. The Back of the Market House, 17. The Floor of the Market House, 17. The Town Hall and Municipal Buildings, 18. Window in Hall of Municipal Buildings, 18. Twickenham House, 20. Doorway of Twickenham House, 21. No. 36, Bath Street, 21. No. 57, East S. Helen Street, 22.

Allhai.lows, Lombard Street ... ... ... Halsey Ricardo ... ... ... 97

Illustrations : — South Side of the Screen, 97. The Principal Entrance, 98. The Tower, 99. South-West Corner of Vestibule, showing Doorway into Porch, 100. View from North-West Corner of the Vestibule, 101. Vaulting Over Vestibule, 102. Old Gateway to the Church. Now Preserved in the Porch, 103. The Font, 104. Interior, Looking East, 105. The Pulpit, 106. The Organ, 107. The Civic Sword and Mace Rests in the Corporation Pew, 108.

Andrea Palladio ... ... ... ... 1. Reginald Blomfield. 2. Banister F. Fletcher 127, 236

Illustrations : — Frontispiece to Palladio’s Architecture, Frontispiece. La Carita, Venice, from Palladio, Edition 1570, 129. Illustration from Large Edition of Barbaro’s “Vitruvius,” 131. Temple of Peace (Basilica of Constantine) as shown by Palladio, Edition 1570, 133. Ditto, as shown by Du Perac, 133. The Pantheon, as shown by Palladio, 134. Ditto, as shown by Du Perac, 134. House for the Trissini at Meledo, 137. Detail of Palazzo Valmarana, 138. Villa Almerigo, 139.

Architectural Education (A Review and Discussion):

I. Germany (with Austria and Switzerland)	T . Bailey Saunders	177
II. Great Britain The Architectural Association Day School ... The Architectural Association Evening School	Arthur T. Bolton. William G. B. Lewis.	217
Architecture and the Royal Academy : A Discussion :
IV.	Professor F. M. Simpson ... ... 37
V. Conclusion ...	1. Alexander Graham.	2. D. S. MacColl 47
Architecture at the Royal Academy, 1903. I.	D. S. MacColl	222
Architecture, Current. See Current Architecture. Arts and Crafts Exhibition, The: A Discussion:
I.	Mervyn Macartney ...	141
II. Conclusion ...	D. S. MacColl	. 187
Atkinson, R. Frank		76, 77
Balfour and Turner		38, 39, 40
Belcher, John, A. R.A.	i54>	159, 160, 161, 162, 163
Bell, E. Ingress ...	230,	231, 232, 233, 234, 235
Blomfield, Reginald		127
Bone, Muirhead	Frontispieces. January, February, and June
Books (Reviewed) :
“ Manuel D’Archeologie Francaise.” Part I. (C. Enlart)	G. H. Palmer	42
“ The Pavement Masters of Siena.” (R. FI. Hobart Cust)	Gerald C. Horsley...	44
“ The Dictionary of Architecture.” (Russell Sturgis, Editor) Ernest Newton	. 78
“Fra Angelico.” (R. Langton Douglas) ...	Charles Holroyd	80
“ Emrlish Woodwork of the Sixteenth, Seventeenth
and Eighteenth Centuries.” (FI. Tanner, Junr.)	Rev. W. J . Loftie ...	164
Brown, Rev. J. Wood		65

Index

lii

PAGE

Carden, Robert W. Cheston and Perkin Collcutt, T. E. Correspondence :

52

...41, 42

••• i54. i55. !56- i57. J5S

The Cathedral of Siena ... ... ... ... 1. Louise M. Richter. 2. Langton Douglas 82

“Andrea Palladio” ... ... ... ... Banister F. Fletcher ... ... 236

Current Architecture : —

Illustrations: -“Westbrook,” Godaiming: Balfour and Turner, Architects, 38, 39, 40. London and County Bank, Wandsworth : Cheston and Perkin, Architects, 41, 42. House at Wendover, Bucks : Marshall and Vickers, Architects, 73, 74, 75, 76. Lodge and Entrance Gates, Footscray Place, Kent: R. Frank Atkinson, Architect, 76, 77. “ Sandhouse,” Witley, for Mr. |oseph King: F. W. Troup, Architect, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124. Lloyd's Registry: T. E Collcutt, Architect, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158. Cornbury Park, Oxon : John Belcher, A.R.A., Architect, 154, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163. The Royal School of Art Needlework, South Kensington : F. B. Wade, Architect, 189, 190, 191. Fire Brigade Station, Euston Road, W.C. : W. E. Riley, Superintending Architect, London County Council, 192, 193. Joint Station of the East Indian and Bengal and Magpur Railways, Howrah, Calcutta: Halsey Ricardo, Architect, 194, 195. Christ's Hospital, West Horsham: Aston Webb, A.R.A., and E. Ingress Bell, Architects, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235

Cust, R. H. Hobart

Douglas, Professor R. Langton

Education, Architectural. I. and II.

T. Bailey

U

80, 83, 203

Saunders, A . T. Bollon, W. G. B. Lewis 177, 217

Enlart, C. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 42

Exeter Cathedral, How it was Built. I. ... ... Professor W. R. Lethaby ... 109, 167

Illustrations, 1st Article: — Plan, 109. Interior, from the West, 1x0. Border to Clerestory Windows, 111. Minstrel’s Gallery, North Side of Nave, 112. View across Transepts, showing Pulpitum, 113. The Image Wall and Central Door, 117. Statue over Central Door, 118. David, 11S. Corbel at South-East Angle of Crossing, 166.

North Transeptal Tower, 167. Plan of Norman Church, 168. Corbel-table Turrets, South Tower, 168. South View of Norman Church, 168. Exeter Cathedral: Plan, 169. Exterior of the Choir from the North, 171. Exterior of the Nave from the South, 172. Interior of the Nave from the Clerestory, t73. Restoration of North Walk of Cloister, 174. Vault, Eastern Chapels, 175. Cor e Marble-Work, 175.

Figure-Sculpture in England, Medieval ... ... Edward S. Prior and Arthur Gardner 23, 143

Fletcher, Banister F. ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... 236

Forms of the Tuscan Arch ... ... ... Rev. J. Wood Brown ... ... 65

Illustrations: — Arch Por' S. Maria, Florence, 66. Door of Bigallo, Florence, 67. North Door, S. M. Forisportam,

Lucca, 67. Door of Torre delle Ore, Lucca, 69. South Facade Arch, San Martino, Lucca, 70. External Arch,

Porta dell’ Annunziata, Lucca, 70. West Door, S. Stefano, Florence, 71. Campanile Arch, S. Piero Somaldi,

Luc a, 72.

Gardner, Arthur ...

Graham, Alexander Guildhall, Peterborough, The

Illustration, 229.

Holroyd, Charles ...

Horsley, Gerald C.

How Exeter Cathedral was Built...

Knossos, The Palace of. I.

Lethaby, Professor W. R.

Liverpool Cathedral Competition ...

Illustrations : — The Des'gn placed First by the Assessors. Road, 224. Plan of Crypt, 225. Cross Section, 226.

Loftie, Rev. W. J. ...

Macartney, Mervyn MacColl, D. S.

Marshall and Vickers

Medieval Figure-Sculpture in England

...	23, M3
	47
Rev. W. /. Loftie	230
	80
	44
Professor W. R. Lethaby	109, 167
R. Phene Spiers	196
	109, 167
F. M. Simhson	... 225

G. Gilbert Scott, Architect. Elevation to St. James’s Ground Plan, 227. Longitudinal Section, 228.

1, 164, 230 ... 141

... 48, 87, I40, 187, 222 ••• 73, 74, 75, 76

Edward S. Prior and Arthur Gardner

Chapter IV. : First Gothic Sculpture, 1160-1275

Illustrations : — Head in Cloister, Bridlington, 27. Vault-corbel in N. Transept, Lichfield Cathedral, 27. Wells Cathedral: (a) Vault-corbel, S. Transept; (ft) Label-head, Nave (East Bay); ( c ) Capital, N. Transept, 28. Llandaff Cathedral. Head in Capital of Nave, 28. Wells Cathedral. Label-head in West Bays of Nave (N. side), 28. Salisbury Cathedral: (a) Corbel-head, East Bays of Nave; ( b ) Corbel-head, S.E. Transept;

( c ) Corbel-head in Quire, 29. (a and b) Boxgrove Priory Church. Corbel-heads in Quire, 29. (a and b ) Box- grove Priory. Label-heads in Quire, 29. Purbeck Sculpture: (a) Rochester Cathedral, Corbel-head in Quire ; (ft) Salisbury Cathedral, Corbel-head, E. Transept ; ( c ) Salisbury Cathedral, Corbel-head, Main Transept, 29. (a) Wells Cathedral, Label-head, West Bays of Nave ; (ft) Salisbury Cathedral, Corbel-head, West Bays of Nave ; (c and d) Westminster Chapter, Label-heads of Wall Arcade; (e, /, and g) Salisbury Chapter, Label-heads of Wall Arcade ; ( h ) Salisbury Quire-screen, Label-head of Arcade ; (i) Durham Quire, Corbel-head, 30. Lincoln Cathedral. Label-head in “Angel Choir,” 31. Hayling Church (near Portsmouth), Spur of Base, 31. Oxford Cathedral. Vault-corbel in Chapter-house, 32. Wells Cathedral. Vault-corbel in Passage to Chapter- house, 32. Wells Cathedral. Vault-corbel, N. Transept, 32. Lichfield Cathedral. Arch-mould to N. Transept Doorway, 32. Lincoln Cathedral. South Doorway of “ Angel Choir,” 33. Westminster Chapter-house. Moulding of Doorway, 33. Salisbury Chapter-house. Moulding of Doorway, “ The Virtues and Vices,” 33. Figure Capitals of First Gothic Period : (a) Wells Cathedral, N. Porch, “ Martyrdom of S. Edmund ” ; (ft) Wells, S. Transept, in W. Aisle; (c) Wells, in North Aisle, East Bay; (d) Durham Quire, in Triforium, N. si’e; (e) Lincoln, Corbel in S.E. Transept; (/) Lichfield Chapter, Capital of Wall Arcade, 34. Lincoln Cathedral, Capital of Door in South Quire Aisle, 35. Grotesques of the Thirteenth Century : (a) Lincoln Cathedral, Dragon on Plinth, N. side; (6) Oxford Cathedral, Corbel in Chapter-house ; ( c ) Hayling Church, Spur of Base;

(d) Hayling Church, Capital of Font Shaft; ( e ) Wells, Corbel in N. Transept; (/) Chichester Cathedral, Gargoyle on N. Side of Nave ; (g) Chichester, N. Quire Aisle, 36.

Index

1X7

i V

Mediaeval Figure-Sculpture in England — continued. i-aqb

Chapter V. : First Gothic Figure-Sculpture Carving in Relief ... ... ... 143

Illustrate ns : — Stone Reliefs, 1 urham, 143, Relief, Bristol Elder Lady Chapel, 144. Worcester South-East Tran- Ditto, 145. Westminster Abbey, Chapel of St. Edmund, 145. Reliefs, Westminster Abbey North Transept. West Side, 146. Salisbury Chapter-house, “Lot and his Daughters," 146. Ditto, “Jacob's Brethren," 147 Ditto, The Ark, 147. Ditto, “ Pharaoh's Dream," 148. Salisbury Anc ent Choir Screen, 148.

Ditto, 149. Reliefs from Angel Choir, Lincoln: (a) Angel with Harp; (b) Madonna; (c) Angel with Spear;

[,/, Angel swinging Censer, 150. Plan of Angel Choir, Lincoln Cathedral, 151. Reliefs from Angel Choir,

./ Angel with Scales: (6) The Expulsion, 152. Ditto, (a) Angel with Crowns, ( b ) Angel holding small Figure;

(o Angel with Book ; (d) Angel with Scroll in lap, 153.

Mediaeval Southampton ... ... ... ... Robert W. Carden ... . ... ... 52

Illustrations: — North Bailey Wall, 52. N.W. Angle, with Arundel and Catchcold Towers, 54. Interior of Arundel Tower, 54. Castle Watergate, 55. The Arcading with King John’s Palace and the “ Blue Anchor" Postern,

55. Westgate, from the Quay, 56. fl he Old Guardroom, 56. The Westgate, 57. The Spanish Prison, 58.

The Watergate, 59. God’s House Tower, 59. Back of the Walls, 60. Eastgate, 60. The Polymond Tower, 61.

The Bargate, 62. Arundel Tower, before the rebuilding of “Old Tower" Inn, 63. S. Michael's Church, 63.

Font, S. Michael's Church, 64. Tudor House, 64.

Mr. Watt’s Colossal, Equestrian Statue Illustration : — “ Physical Energy,” 140.	D. S. MacColl	140
Newton, Ernest		... 78
Orvieto Cathedral ...	... R. Langton Douglas	... 203

Illustrations: — Plan, 203 View from the North-west, 204. Alternative Designs for the Fagade, by Lorenzo del

Maitano, 206, 207. General View of Carvings on two Centre Piers of the Facade, 208. General View of Carvings on the Outside Piers of the Fagade, 209. The Fagade, Details : The Creation, 210. Ditto, Adam and Eve in Paradise, 21 1. Ditto, The Nativity, The Adoration of the Magi, The Visitation, 212. Ditto, The Resur¬ rection, 213. Ditto, The Inferno, 214. The Interior, looking East, 215.

Palace of Knossos, Crete, The	... R. Phene Spiers		196
Illustrations : — Plan of the Palace, Facing page 197. Ruins of the Palace. General View of Remains on the East Slope, 197. Western Court and the Great Gypsum Wall, 198. Plan of Conjectural Restorations, 199. Entrance to Throne Room, 200. The Throne, 200.
Palladio, Andrea	1. Reginald Blomfeld. 2. Banister F. Fletcher	127,	236
Palmer, G. W.			42
Peterborough Guildhall	Rev. W . J . Loftie ...	229,	230

Plates ;

Lithograph : The Last of Newgate. From a Draining by Muivhead Bone. January.

Frontispieces: Housebreaking in the Strand. From a Drawing by Muivhead Bone. February. The Guildhall. From a Drawing by Muivhead Bone. June.

Prior, Edward S.		23, i43
Ricardo, Halsey ... ... ... ...	... 97,	W4> 195
Richter, Louise M.		... 82
Riley, W. E.		192, 193
Royal Academy, Architecture and the :
V. A Discussion— Conclusion	1. Alexander Graham. 2. D . S . MacColl. 47
Royal Academy, 1903, Architecture at the. I.	D.S. MacColl	222
Siena Cathedral		82
Simpson, Professor F. M.		37) 225
Southampton, Mediaeval	Robert W. Carden ...	... 52
Spiers, R. Phene		196
Stevens, Alfred, The Wellington Monument of	D. S. MacColl	... 87
Sturgis, Russell ... ... ...		... 78
Tanner, H., Junr. ...		164
Troup, F. W. ... ... ... . ...	120, 121, 122,	123, 124
Tuscan Arch, Forms of the	Rev.J. Wood Brown	... 65
Wade, F. B.	189,	190, 191
Watts, G. F.		140
Webb, Aston, A.R.A.	230, 231, 232, 233,	234. 235
Wellington Monument of Alfred Stevens, The	D. S. MacColl	... 87

Illustrations : — Full-size Model for the Equestrian Statue as designed to be be seen from the Nave, Frontispiece. Thd Equestrian Figure from the small Sketch-Model, 87. Full-size Model, front view, 88. Ditto, another view, 89. Ditto, as designed to be seen from the N. Aisle, 90. Donatello’s- Gattamelata at Padua, 91. Head of the Duke, from the fulf-size Model, 92. Study by Alfred Stevens for the Equestrian Statue, 93. View of the full-size Model for the Monument in Stevens’s studio, with corrections in pencil by Stevens, 94. The Monument as it now stands in St. Paul's, 95. The Original Sketch-Model for the Monument (South Kensington), 96.

EYRE AND SPOTTISWOODE, HIS MAJESTY’S PRINTERS, DOWNS PARK ROAD, HACKNEY, LONDON, N.E.

Abingdon.

There are many towns and villages in England which maybe regarded as, in themselves, schools and museums of architecture. The cathe¬ dral cities have engrossed our attention, not only to the exclusion of places where there is no minster as a central feature, hut even of the minor features in these cities themselves. There is much to see in Salisbury, for example, besides the cathedral— much in Chichester. But, from this point of view, there are smaller towns which rival even Salisbury or Chichester in the abund¬ ance of their interesting and beautiful houses. Stamford will at once occur to the mind, where the parish churches must be added to the domes¬ tic buildings ; or Burford, a dead borough, which at one time must have displayed a street of palaces; or Bradford, or Tewkesbury, or Cor- sham, or Newbury, or, in short, any place where trade and manufactures were brisk in the years before the Reformation, where good materials were to be had on the spot, and wheie neither king nor baron nor abbot repressed the aesthetic ambition of the burghers. Such old towns abound. In several of them the architectural

PACT of (WISJWN ASSPY

relics take us back to Roman times ; but while a well-preserved hypocaust or a mosaic pavement is rare, such early features as a Norman keep, an Edwardian church, or a half-timbered house, are frequently found. Abingdon, it may be observed, from the peculiarity of its history — a peculiarity which it shares with St. Albans, Bury St. Ed¬ munds, Gloucester, and other places — -is deficient in mediaeval domestic buildings. The abbots of these towns discouraged settlers. There were seldom any local manufactures. The town grew, not on account of the abbey patronage, but in spite of its influence. The oldest houses now to be found at Abingdon, when we pass by those of the abbey itself, are of post-Reformation date. From the point of view indicated above, the town shows us specimens of Norman, in one of the churches, St. Nicholas; of First Pointed, in some of the domestic buildings of the abbey; of the Decorated style in the other church, St. Helen’s ; of Perpendicular in a few of the out-buildings of the monks and the greater part of the last-named church and the bridge. The latest Gothic is, however, scarce, and the more remarkable of the

VOL. XIII. — A

A bin cr don.

o

3

A bingdon .

buildings were erected after the dissolution of the monastery, and when the abbey church had fallen

into ruin.

Of the remains still existing, some interesting features should be noticed. Mr. Harry Redfern has explored the site of Abingdon Abbey, and the municipal authorities, the Mayor and Corporation, have warmly seconded his efforts for the preserva¬ tion of what remains. The church has wholly disappeared. It was, no doubt, to eastward of St. Nicholas, which stands, and has stood since Norman times, to eastward of the market place. A meadow behind Abbey House is locally and traditionally pointed out as the site. If so, it must have been very long, and the cloisters and residential buildings, like those of Westminster Abbey and many other ancient Benedictine houses, must have covered the ground to south¬ ward, between it and the Thames, if they did not extend across a bridge to the islet on which the modern house called The Abbey is built. Of these buildings, only foundations and a few carved stones are left of the church, the chapter house, the cloister, the abbot’s house and ther domestic offices, the bakehouse and the brewtrouse. To westward of the probable sites of these portions is a large and very interesting building of which I am able, by the kindness of Mr. Redfern, to offer a plan and some photographic views. To west¬ ward is a modern brewery, which may well occupy the ground formerly taken up by this most im¬ portant feature of a great mediaeval monastery. Rather to the south, on an island of the Thames, was, and is, the Abbey Mill. Abingdon was cer¬ tainly not deficient in either bread or beer, and the solicitude of the great Abbot, St. Ethelwold, afterwards Bishop of Winchester, in providing both for the monks, is specially recorded in the Chronicle.

The long building just mentioned may have formed some part of the lodgings of the Abbot, or still more likely it may have been part of an infirmary. The abbots, before the thirteenth century, were noted for their medical skill. To it they owed the most important of their outlying estates — the church manor of Kensington, where they are still commemorated in St. Mary “ Abbott’s” and several other local names. Faricius, we read, was skilled in the treatment of disease, and to his care Aubrey Vere, the lord of the manors of Hyde, and Neyt, and Kensington, among others, entrusted Geoffrey, his son, who was in ill-health. Faricius so far relieved the sufferings of the youth that when he lay on his death-bed he besought his father to grant to his kind physician 270 acres of the last named manor.

Faricius was born at Arezzo, in Italy, and came to England apparently as physician to Henry I.

In this capacity he attended Queen Matilda at the birth of her first child, she having, it seems, resided near Abingdon for the purpose. To her gifts on this occasion, Abingdon owed much, in¬ cluding the materials of the Palace at Andersey. When, in after years, Faricius would have been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, the monks objected because of the mundane character of his principal occupation ; and he died Lord Abbot of Abingdon, to which office he was consecrated in 1100 by Bishop Robert of Lincoln. It will be remembered that Henry I. owed his surname of Beauclerc to the good education he had received at Abingdon.

Of the Norman time, there remains now only the doorway, in the market place, of St. Nicholas Church, so severely “restored” in 1881, if not before, that nothing of the eleventh century, except the form, is left. It is recorded that Faricius built the Abbey Church, probably the eastern end, and possibly the transepts ; but all this has perished. He died in 1115, and was locally regarded as a saint, though he was never canonised.

Two other abbots should be noticed. Nicholas of Coleham, or Culham, built the bridge at a spot south of the town called the “ borough ford,” or Burford ; and to him also is attributed the exist¬ ing structure of St. Nicholas Church. He had been Prior, and was Abbot from 1289 to 1307. The bridge was continued by a causeway and further bridge to Culham in the fifteenth century. The seven arches of the Burford end are all pointed, though disguised in part by a round- arched widening, and are ribbed.

The bridge was taken in charge by a Guild of Holy Cross, which built itself a chapel or aisle in the church of St. Helen, as we shall see further on. The last Abbot is named in a roll of arms of 1515. He is described as “ Thabbot of Abyngdon, lord thomas pentecost,” and his arms are, “ Argent, a cross fleury, between four mart¬ lets,” impaling “ Sable, on a fess between three doves volant argent, ensigned with haloes and membered or, a lion’s face between two covered cups gules.” Similar doves, but without haloes, appear in the arms of the Lord Abbot of Bury, John Melford, alias Reve, whose name precedes that of Abbot Pentecost. In 1537, Pentecost and twenty-five monks surrendered to Henry VIII. The Abbot received a grant of the manor of Cumnor, and a pension. The estates of the Abbey were estimated to produce £1,876 10s. g d. a year, equal to some £18,000 now. The Lord Thomas Pentecost, resuming his patronymic, be¬ came Dr. Thomas Rowland, D.D., but does not figure again in ecclesiastical history. The in¬ fluence of the abbots had been always to repress

4

A bingdon.

REMAINS OF THE ABBEY BUILDINGS, FROM THE NORTH-EAST.

By kind permission of Mr. II . Redfern.

the trade of the townsfolk. The early struggles of the burghers were for leave to hold markets and other small privileges, and were uniformly put down with a high hand. In 1327 the neigh¬ bouring city of Oxford, in the person of the Mayor and some of the students, came to the help of

Abingdon, but spoilt a good cause by their excesses. Part of the abbey was burnt in this riot, which was not quelled until twelve of the rioters had been hanged. It maybe imagined that, once the abbey was dissolved, no one raised a hand to save the buildings; and where good stone

5

A bingdon.

INTERIOR, GROUND FLOOR, ABBEY BUILDINGS. By kind permission 0/ Mr. H. Red/nn.

6

A Inn g don.

INTERIOR, LONG ABBEY BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR.

7

A bin g don.

was scarce, it is only surprising that this substan¬ tial fragment remains.

The building shows two finely-vaulted cham¬ bers on the ground floor, with two more in an upper storey, and adjoining them to the eastward a long chamber with an oak roof. To the south¬ ward looking across a narrow lawn, which appears to have been in part, at least, enclosed by build¬ ings, to the Thames, was a solid stone wall pierced by several traceried windows. The win¬ dows of the vaulted chambers are in the First Pointed style, the Decorated style appearing on the north side in a kind of court. The long building, however, had only windows towards the river in its two centre bays ; the two bays at the west end, and the one, all that remains of two which were apparently at the eastern end, look¬ ing, according to some indications in the wood¬ work, into a corridor along the north side. The roof, too, shows that the two central bays on the first floor were separate chambers, with Perpen¬ dicular windows looking south, and with fireplaces of the same period.

There is no internal communication apparent between this eastern building — all of the Perpen¬ dicular period — and the very substantial thirteenth

Photo: W.J. Vasey.

13TH CENTURY FIREPLACE, IN UPPER FLOOR OF ABBEY BUILDING.

century house to westward. In it all the original features are First Pointed, but two Decorated windows appear on the north front. An outside stair led to a narrow door. The parapet of the roof seems to have been battlemented. The groining within is very fine, and has survived a long period both of neglect and of injury. Now that it is well cared for, we may hope that archaeo¬ logists competent to pronounce may identify it and the adjoining chambers. Meanwhile guess¬ work would be wholly out of place. The external chimney is well known, being probably the only per¬ fect thirteenth century example in existence. The fireplace, which corresponds to it within, is also of the highest rarity, with its graceful shafts and carved capitals worthy of the age which has left us the chapter house of Southwell. The chimney long carried a vane, which is still in existence, after having threatened, until it was taken down a few years ago, to destroy the whole structure. The chimney is now in no great danger except from climbing plants. A second chimney, of the same period in Mr. Redfern’s opinion, but wanting the external hood, is on an adjoining building to the westward. This, which was for some years a Bridewell, now consists of tenements, which, with many of the houses in the immediate neighbour¬ hood, exhibits in roof and walls traces everywhere of mediaeval architecture. The abbey precincts extended to Bridge Street, the houses on the east side of which are still described in legal docu¬ ments as “ within the boundaries of the late dis¬ solved Abbey of St. Mary of Abingdon.” The Perpendicular gateway opens on the market place.

Near the church of St. Helen a fragment, con¬ sisting of little more than a single wall with a Decorated window in it, exists of a cell of the nunnery of Godstow. d his relic was for many years a malt store, but, with an adjoining house of good Georgian style, has been rescued and worked into a very charming private residence by Mr. Redfern. Across a narrow street are the massive tower and the many gables of St. Helen’s church. On the south a wide quay is flanked by a range of almshouses and the two side-entrances to the churchyard. The spire is very familiar to passengers by river to or from Oxford, and figures in many landscapes from the days of Turner down.

In addition to these monastic relics of the Gothic style, there are the two churches, both of which present features of interest. St. Nicholas stands on the east side of the market place, and must have closely abutted on the abbey church, like St. Gregory by St. Paul’s or St. Margaret beside the Westminster. It is said to have been built by Nicholas of Culham ; but that Prior, who

8

A bmgd 072 .

\

I3TH CENTURY CHIMNEY, ABBEY BUILDINGS.

Photo : W. J. Vasey.

was afterwards Abbot, died in 1307, and a consider¬ able portion of the church, especially the western doorway, is of the Norman period. A very “thorough restoration ” in 1881 destroyed the evidences on which an opinion could be based. In fact, the church as we now see it is of the Victorian period, even some relics of stained glass bearing the arms of Richard, Duke of York, the father of Ed¬ ward IV., having been removed and sold. A further falsification of the record occurs on the south side, where the parapet is adorned with a series of small shields with a text from the Psalms in Latin in Lombardic letters. There are, or were, some curious features of a domestic cha¬ racter on the west and north sides, including a gabled stair-turret, which seem to suggest either that a priest’s residence adjoined the church or that it was connected with some abbey buildings which have now disappeared. At the south¬ eastern corner it adjoins the fine Perpendicular gateway. The narrow street just outside the abbey gateway is very picturesque. On the north side is the church ; on the east side is the ancient arch, with a hall, now occupied by the munici¬ pality, above. On the south is a further range of Perpendicular windows and doorways, now the Mayor’s court and magistrates’ room. These occupy the ground floor, a municipal hall of very good but simple Palladian design forming the first

floor. The Gothic gate had originally a smaller archway on the north side only, but a second arch on the south side was among the alterations carried out during one of the “restorations.” The chamber above the gate is approached within from the Town Hall. It was within living memory used as a debtors’ prison, where the poor denizens were to be seen hanging their hats and bags for alms from its stone-mullioned windows. It is now in excellent repair, and well furnished for small gatherings and Masonic lodge meetings.

Of the abbey buildings no other complete re¬ mains are to be seen. Two large modern houses, one on the north side of the street, called Abbey House, just within the gate, the other, called The Abbey, further on, approached by a bridge over a side stream, should be named, as well as a net¬ work of little tenements and lanes, among which, as already mentioned, fragments of old masonry may be identified. Among the houses is the chapel of a Calvinistic sect known from the name of its founder, John Tiptaft, who preached here seventy or eighty years ago.

PYom St. Nicholas to St. Helen’s the distance is considerable. St. Nicholas, as we have seen, is outside the western gate of the abbey, but we find traces of monastic buildings close to St. Helen’s also. The Lord Abbot, no doubt, enjoyed the long garden with its ancient quav on the bank

9

A bivgdon .

o

o

ST. HELEN’S WHARF, WITH A VIEW OF ST. HELEN S SPIRE AND CHRIST’S HOSPITAL BUILDINGS, ABINGDON.

THE HOUSE AT THE EXTREME RIGHT OK THE VIEW IS HELENSTOWE.

I o

A In npdon.

o

Photo : W. J. Vasey.

ST. HELEN’S CHURCH, SHOWING THE FIVE AISLES.

of the Thames. A number of good houses of the early Georgian period now stand on the south side of East St. Helen's Street, and have gardens which reach to the Abbot’s Quay. Some of them are mentioned further on.

St. Helen’s Church consists, strictly speaking) of a chancel and nave with two aisles, each flanked by a long chapel. Within, all these separate parts are thrown into the seated area of the church, which is thus described as having five aisles. It has not, however, suffered so much in recent years as St. Nicholas, the greatly larger area rendering a complete gutting and re-building too expensive. The chapels are now called — that on the south, Holy Cross aisle, and that on the north, Jesus aisle. The Lady Chapel occupies the north aisle proper, and the corresponding south aisle is dedicated to St. Katharine. A fine tomb near the north porch commemorates John Roysse, whom we meet again as the founder of the Grammar School. He died in 1571. The carving of his arms — “ Gules, a griffin, segreant, argent ” — has been well imitated in the decora¬ tions of the new Grammar School in the Albert Park. The tomb has been somewhat altered and pulled about, and the old “ shewbread ” for

distribution is no longer laid on it. There are many other monuments of the sixteenth century, when, as John Leland wrote in 1540, the town “ stondeth by clothing,” as indeed it does still. The hour-glass for the pulpit — on which, in 1591, the churchwardens spent fourpence — has disap¬ peared. There are two monumental brasses, one of 1417, one of 1501. The view of the liighly- irregular five gables from the churchyard, round which the three almshouses are built, will be admired.

The almshouses on the west side of the church¬ yard are the oldest, having been built about 1553. They look best from the garden outside, where a good bow window and small cupola, or bell turret, group very happily with the spire of the church rising beyond. The long cloister porch of dark oak admits the visitor to a hall which serves as a chapel. In it are hung the portraits of several benefactors, and especially of the founders of the allied charities, the building and maintenance of the bridges over the Thames and the Ock, and the endowment of the Grammar School.

The building of the bridge in the fifteenth century increased the prosperity of the town, and the names of several wealthy burghers are

A bingdon.

i i

CHRIST’S HOSPITAL. CHRIST’S HOSPITAL.

A bingdon.

i 2

connected with it. Burford, “ the borough ford,” as'the name denotes, was the only way across pre¬ viously, and no doubt was very often dangerous, especially when the Thames was high. With the oldest of the almshouses in the churchyard, and with one of the chapels in St. Helen’s Church, is connected the history of a Guild of the Holy

increased. In 1797 the additional almshouse on the south side of the graveyard was built as funds permitted, in a quaint style, not unpicturesque. In 1707, a further benefaction by Charles Twitty, an Auditor of the Exchequer, supplemented by other gifts duly recorded on tablets on the front, led to the erection of the pretty little building on

Photo : W. J. Vasey.

TWITTY’S ALMSHOUSES.

Cross, to whom the care and repair of the bridge was entrusted. When guilds were abolished by Act of Parliament in the reign of Edward VI., the lands which belonged to this fraternity were granted for the same uses to trustees, the most prominent being Sir John Mason, Chancellor of Oxford, a native of the town. The estates have increased in value, and under a recent scheme the number of the inmates has been largely

the north side. It has a grandiose pediment and a small lantern and vane above, and forms a pleasing object with its flower beds at the entrance of the churchyard from St. Helen’s Street.

Nearly as old is Tomkins’s Almshouse in Ock Street. The entrance gateposts admit us to two rows of small houses on either side of a narrow garden, and a curious clock tower and lantern at the northern end. It is of brick, in a very simple

13

A bin o don.

o

TOMKINS’S ALMSHOUSE, OCIC STREET. FOUNTAIN IN WALL OF HOUSE, QCK STREET, DATE 1 719.

14

A billed on.

o

but effective style. The tower bears an inscrip¬ tion : —

These Alms Houses were built in the year 1733 by the order of Mr. Benjamin Tomkins the Elder of this town and according to the form prescribed by him to his Sons Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Joseph Tomkins who were executors to his last Will and Testament by which he gave Sixteen hundred Pounds to endow the same for four Poor Men and four Poor W omen for Ever.

Close to these almshouses in Ock Street is a curious brick well or fountain, now sadly neglected and dirty. It was connected with a conduit which still exists on the hill above, being included within the boundaries of the Albert Park. The fountain is only about five feet high, but the proportions would suit a much larger building. It is inscribed “ Mr. R. Ely, 1719/’ and so is older than the almshouses and than any of the Tomkins buildings. In the admirable account of Abingdon in Kelly’s Directory for Berkshire, we are told that it was erected by Richard Eley in 1673, a date which might connect it with the designer of the Market House ; but, apart from the spelling of the name, no inscription to this effect can now be seen on the fountain, and I am forced to suspect an unusually accurate writer of napping on this occasion.

Next in strict chronological order, therefore, should come the famous Market House. A smaller market building stood on the site, faced bv the “ Holv Cross,” of which the Chronicle of Abingdon ( Rolls Series) has so much to say, and which was built by the same fraternity as the bridge already mentioned. The cross was destroyed by General Waller in 1644. When Abingdon be¬ came an assize town, the burgesses determined to build a suitable county hall. The old Market House was accordingly taken down, and the present Market House was specially built to accommodate the courts. The old house may have been like that of Wallingford, a little further down the Thames, or that of Uxbridge in Middle¬ sex, or that of Peterborough.

The new Market House is the great architectural glory of Abingdon, and will strike the visitor who comes upon it suddenly, whether from the wretched shed which does duty as a railway station in Stert Street, or up Bridge Street from the Thames, with a feeling of admiration in the

double sense of that word — surprise and pleasure. It stands free from its surroundings, and is built of what appears to be ashlar in good-sized blocks. The outline is symmetrical, the east and west ends consisting of two bays, the north and south of four. Each bay has an arch, but the pilasters seen on the exterior rise through the upper storey to the roof. The order is Composite and boldly carved. At the western end, between the arches, is a small bracket with acanthus to suit the style, the only piece of pure ornament. At the back — that is, the northern side — is a square tower of three storeys rising to the level of the top of the roof, with its dormers, of the main building. The windows of the staircase in the tower have the cross mullions common under the Stuarts. The roof of the tower is flat with a plain parapet, relieved by three urns on each face. The sloping leaden roof of the main building has a balustraded platform in the centre from which the domed lantern rises, the windows of which are round- headed or triangular on alternate faces. This cupola, on which is an elaborate vane, is of wood roofed with lead. The roof of the tower, the open storey, is interesting, being made of oak rafters, flat, but supported by a series of arched beams, from the middle one of which a lamp is suspended by wrought ironwork.

The houses press very closely on the north and north-east side, and Mr. Vasey, the photographer, had some difficulty in bringing the tower into focus. The rafters and beams of the roof were also taken at an awkward angle, but Mr. Redfern’s plan will have made all plain. The fine chamber designed for an assize court has been used of late for an art school, being admirably lighted. Visitors should not neglect to see the view from the roof, which is easy of access by the staircase of shallow steps arranged in sets of five.

The local tradition which assigns this beautiful building to Inigo jones is obviously mistaken. Inigo died in 1652. The old Market House was not pulled down until 16 77, quarter of a century later. Mr. Reginald Blomfield has suggested (“ Renaissance Architecture,” i. 130) that the de¬ signs were prepared by Webb, who succeeded to Inigo's business, and there are certain points of resemblance between it and Ashdown, in the same county, unquestionably by Webb. The same difficulty, however, occurs here again, though not to so great a degree, for Webb had been dead three years in 16 77. The Market House, too, was not commenced till 28th May, 1678, when the foundation stone was laid at the north-western corner. The modern inscription on the wall is therefore incorrect. Work went on till 1684, but the building had been opened for use a year before.

A bingdon.

i5

Photo : W. J . Vasey.

THE MARKET HOUSE, ABINGDON.

NOW ATTRIBUTED TO CHRISTOPHER KEMPSTER. SOMETIME A CLERK OF THE WORKS

UNDER WREN AT ST. PAUL’S CATHEDRAL.

By the kindness of Mr. Arthur Preston, of Whitefield, Abingdon, I am able to offer what I conceive to be a solution of the questions thus indicated. Mr. Preston’s late father rescued cer¬ tain documents which were treated as waste paper by the municipal authorities of a former genera¬

tion. Among them are the accounts for the building of the Market House, and I am enabled to write with them before me.

The first item in the account is dated January 1st, 1677, that is, in our reckoning, 1678. The whole entry is as follows: — “To Christopher

1 6

A bingdon.

GROUND AND FIRST FLOOR PLANS.

By kind permission of Mr. H. Red fern

THE MARKET HOUSE.

A bingdon

A

VOL. XIII.-— B

THE BACK OF THE MARKET HOUSE, FROM EAST S. HELEN STREET. THE FLOOR OF THE MARKET HOUSE.

1 8

A bingdon.

		--	— : ugl	||
\ _ llg	. _ . __ . - ------		wi	t j 41 ii

THE TOWN HALL AND MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS. WINDOW IN HALL OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS.

!9

A bingdon.

Kempster in part for monies due to him for build¬ ing the Sessions House . . . £30.” Else¬

where Kempster, who usually has “ Mr. ” before his name, is described as “ the undertaker.” In all, the payments made to him amount to £1,543, the last being on January 14th, 1682 (1683), when he received “ in full for all his work done at the Market House,” £345 10s. Kempster was almost certainly the same man who was one of Wren’s clerks at St. Paul’s, and lies buried at Burford, in Oxfordshire. That he designed the Market House seems very probable, and that he was not a com¬ mon workman, but a person of consideration, may be deduced from another item in the accounts : — “ April 14th, 1681. Spent at different times with Mr. Kempster when the account was made with him, 7s.” If, then, he did not actually make the design, he must have obtained it from a master, and that master was more probably Wren than either Inigo Jones or Webb. At all events, the enquiry has been advanced a stage, and we know, at least, who built the Market House. It is interesting to note the second entry in the account is for boards supplied by one John Webb, and that the iron work, which is very good, was wrought by Thomas Tomkins, one of a family elsewhere mentioned. The total cost was £2,840.

The Town Hall has been mentioned already as being in part built on the old monastic gateway and other outlying adjuncts of St. Mary’s Abbey. Had these newer features been in such a style as the Hotel, which occupies since 1864 the site of the old New Inn, or in such a style as that of the Corn Exchange, the result would have been dis¬ tressing. Even if, when adding to the old Gothic buildings, some attempt had been made at using what is often with futility called a harmonious design, we might have had the old work disguised or falsified. But the unsophisticated burghers of the time of King George II. built their Town Hall and the adjoining Council Chamber in what they looked upon as the best and only reasonable style of the day. The designer of the wonderful Market House was no longer to be had ; but that, apart from the Town Hall, there was a good architec¬ tural school in Abingdon is evident from an in¬ spection of some of the beautiful dated fronts to which I hope to advert a little further on. A leaden spout on the Town Hall is dated 1733, and a certificate of insurance framed on the wall, with many other interesting documents, is dated 1736. The Council Chamber is reached from the Gothic ground floor — part, it is believed, of a hospital dedicated to St. John — by a handsome balustraded oak staircase. Some interesting portraits are in the largest room and a few pictures. The balcony which formerly faced the street has disappeared. In the small Council Chamber are many objects

worth examining, the first and best being the very fine Venetian window, with its dark oak Ionic columns. A remarkable collection of views of old Abingdon and its vicinity is hung on the walls, and both here and in the lobby are original documents relating to the history of the town. Some of them tell us of the systematic attack made upon the liberties which had been first granted to the town by Mary Tudor, when James II. and Chan¬ cellor Jeffreys seized the charter and removed James Cordery, the Mayor. The framed “ Orders in Council ” relating to this event are dated 27 November, 1687. In a strong room is pre¬ served the collection of gold and silver plate which Messrs. Jewitt and St. John Hope describe as “ one of the largest assemblages belonging to any provincial town.” The mace dates from 1660, having been made from an older one of the Commonwealth period. A small silver mace, or truncheon, one of three of various dates, bears the arms of Edward VI. The whole collection is full of interest, but hardly concerns us here.

The school was founded by John Roysse in 1563, and is well worthy of a visit. The entrance adjoins that to the Town Hall, and is of a most composite character, but how much in the design is original, how much due to an eighteenth cen¬ tury attempt to imitate Gothic, and how much to a recent “ restoration,” I cannot undertake to say. The visitor finds himself in an extensive courtyard, the municipal buildings partly Gothic, partly Italian, being on his left, A little further south an inscription over a low doorway catches the eye, Ingredere ut proficias. The interior is panelled, and has a gallery of seventeenth century character. The headmaster's seat is of dark oak. The pre¬ sent occupation of the building by the Volunteers has not injured it, and we may compare it with the very interesting schoolroom of the same period and character, still in use, at Bradford-on- Avon in Wiltshire. The school has been removed to a handsome and commodious new building looking on the park at the north end of the town, where a new quarter has sprung up of late years. The school is connected with Pembroke College, Oxford, and has been very successful. It is inte¬ resting to note the name of Dr. Lempriere among the masters. An edition of the “ Classical Dic¬ tionary” was issued in 1804 while he was here.

Abingdon abounds in examples of domestic architecture of the style sometimes if incorrectly denominated “ Queen Anne.” The Americans call it “ Colonial,” but of late it has been more exactly described as “ Georgian ” — a name which, in all the cases illustrated in this paper, fits them very well. Of these the best examples are in East St. Helen’s Street. The houses on the south side of this street look on the old quay already men-

b 2

20

A hingdon.

tioned and the Thames. Some of them have pretty old-fashioned gardens, each with its sum¬ mer house, looking over the river. Beginning with the Old Bell Inn, close to the market place, we note the tradition which connects it with the holding of a Parliament during the Civil War, a tradition which probably originated in a visit of Charles I. and the sitting of a Council of War in 1644.

We next come to No. 20, Twickenham House, a tvpical example of the style, but un¬ dated. Behind handsome gateposts are the stable and coach-house, over which are various modern apartments such as a billiard room, all retaining the cross-mullioned windows which we see in the oldest part of Kensington Palace, where they probably date from the reign of Charles II. They cannot be much later here. The western part of the house is considerably later, but in a very good style. The hall door is of wood. Some mantel¬ piece ornamentation in one of the rooms is par¬ ticularly pleasing, and seems to have been executed in stucco. Altogether Twickenham House forms a very satisfactory commencement of a street filled with good examples. No. 30 is another, and there are several more, all on the same side, ending with

He'enstowe, already mentioned as incorporating a Gothic fragment. Over the do Dr is —

17. IT. 48

I. T. probably denotes Joseph Tomkins, one of a family also commemorated by a fine house now divided in Ock Street, by the almshouse already mentioned, and by a very good house in Bath Street, No. 36, which bears two tablets, cut in the brickwork : —

T.

A small house with a very good front is in East St. Helen’s Street, on the northern side, No. 57. It has an inscription : —

R

R E 1732.

h ; j ; Hi	HI	IjJ	§4
	mm	Mm*	M, ii

TWICKENHAM HOUSE, 20, EAST S. HELEN STREET.

Photo : W. J. Vasey.

A bingdon .

2 I

DOORWAY OF TWICKENHAM HOUSE. 36, BATH STREET, DATED 1 722,

9 9

A bingdon.

The first two, in which the Tomkins initials appear, form a group with a large house in Ock Street, and the Dissenters’ Almshouse, already mentioned, and all may be ascribed to the same designer. The house which bears the initials of R. R. is more ornate and elaborate, but on the whole scarcely as satisfactory, depending as it does, like too many of the modern houses of the town, on ornament for its effect. An immoderate

conclusion that an architect, or possibly a school of architecture, existed in Berkshire at this period, before the first half of the eighteenth century had elapsed. In 1725 Wood was showing his powers at Bath. Burlington and his friends were at work both in London and in York. House-building as a fine art prevailed all over England, the impetus given by Inigo Jones before the Civil War having been revived by Wren and his contemporaries. It

57, EAST S. HELEN STREET. DATED 1 732.

Photo : W.J. Vasey.

use of gables, which came in and went out before the building of the Market House, is a tendency to be deprecated, but among the best or most picturesque examples a little house fast going to decay, in Bridge Street, with an elaborately carved barge-board, probably of the sixteenth century, will be noted with pleasure, as will some simpler specimens of nearly the same age in Stert Street and in West St. Helen’s Street.

A comparison of these and many other ex¬ amples, almost if not quite as good, leads to the

has been but little appreciated till during the past quarter of a century, but its characteristics, which seem incompatible with any but solid well-pro¬ portioned building in sound materials, stone, brick, or timber, and which seem to perish when applied to deceptive stucco or cast terra cotta, are capable of development and honest application at the present day. When studied with apprecia¬ tion and intelligence they are more likely to lead us to fine works in the future than any attempt, with our present building appliances, to imitate

23

English Mediceval Figure-Sculpture.

the triumphs of the middle ages. It seems to me, if we must imitate, which I am not prepared to allow unreservedly, it is better to imitate such satisfactory designs as those of the seventeenth

century Market House or the eighteenth century Town Hall, than the comparatively gloomy thirteenth or fourteenth century structures of the Abbey. W. j. Loftie.

Mediaeval Figure-Sculpture in England.

CHAPTER IV,— FIRST GOTHIC SCULP¬ TURE, 1160-1275.

In our introduction we made some re¬ marks on the genius of Gothic figure-sculpture, and tried to show how exhibiting itself in the medium, of Gothic building, it found its capacities and its limitations in stone. It may be well at this point to refer to some other aspects of this question, which we have to recognise in our consideration of the subject.

It is clear that the phases of Gothic building, as style succeeded style, were produced by a course of masonic evolution, which owed little to acci¬ dents of individual invention or designing imagi¬ nation. In exactly the same way mediaeval figure- sculpture went on its course under no distinct leadership, advancing with the advance in artistic skill of a whole nation, and not owing its improve¬ ments to the talent of any individual sculptor. We are quite unable to label the periods of medi¬ aeval art by the names of any great masters such as Pheidias in Greek or Donatello in Renaissance sculpture. More distinctly than with the arts of other periods the wholesale craft of the Middle Ages seems to have merged in one art the per¬ sonal distinctions of the artist.

Still, in statue-making, where delicate distinc¬ tions of character or idea were expressed, the personal talent of the sculptor had its individual importance in the Gothic centuries as in others. Though we make full allowance for the impersonal nature of mediaeval church building, recognising it as the combined work of a great body of crafts¬ men, witness the contemporary representations of masons at work — for example, in the famous window at Chartres where vault-rib and statue are depicted as being shaped in the same workshop - — yet the personal touch of each individual sculptor must have had its own value. And so, as time went on, certain individuals were bound to be noticed as excelling in the making of statues ; such men would become more and more specialized, till from being mere proficients in a certain branch of stone-carving, they would sepa¬ rate themselves from those who were only stone- shapers, and become definitely “ imagers.” Thus by the end of the thirteenth century we find such mason-imagers mentioned in the accounts of the

building of the Eleanor Crosses.42 Yet it is clear, from the way in which these sculptors are men¬ tioned, that their status was very different from that of the modern artist. The men who made the statues, the fragmentary remains of which excite our admiration, had no distinct position in their art as have the Royal Academicians of to-day, nor were they gentleman-artists of the Italian Cinquecento, welcomed at the court of prince and prelate alike. The mediaeval sculptor ranked as a stone-mason, and with men whose skill we should now class as that of artizans. It was the mason who was honoured : the statuary of the thirteenth century had his status as “ ccementarius,” the craftsman of stone-building.

So we find that while masons or master-masons are recorded in mediaeval documents with consider¬ able frequency, sculptor is rarely mentioned, and then in such connection that his work might just as well have been stone-dressing as statue-carving.41 In England no mediaeval statue has been found signed by the artist, nor do records allude to him with any distinctness. Almost as a solitary indi¬ cation that it was possible in Gothic times to appreciate the artist in sculpture, is the reference of Matthew Paris to a M ariola pulchra by William of Colchester, whom he elsewhere calls picior et sculptor incomp arabilis. The sculptors of the most distinct masterpieces — such as the Wells statues, the Lincoln angels, the chapter-house figures at Westminster — are unknown to us. In some in¬ stances we can deduce from entries in accounts (as in the case of the Eleanor monuments) that masons employed, like Master William of Ire¬ land,42 or Alexander of Abingdon,43 or goldsmiths like Torel,44 the maker of the effigies of Eleanor and Henry III. at Westminster, were figure- artists, for the reason that they were paid for imagines. We shall mention in due course in our pages any such identifications as would avail us

41 See Gervase's well-known account of the rebuilding of Canterbury Quire in 1175, in which “ sculptores ” are stone- dressers.

42 In the accounts so much paid “ Magistro Willielmo de Hibernia cimentario,” also “Willielmo de Hibernia imagina- tori.”

4:1 Called in the accounts “ operarius,” for the making of Wal¬ tham Cross, as well as “ imaginator.”

44 In the accounts so much paid “ Magistro Will. Torel auri fabro.”

24

English Mediaeval Figure-Sculpture.

for a history of Sculptors, but they are really few and of small significance. An account of sculp¬ ture in mediaeval times can make nothing of the personal element. Our sources for the Gothic history differ very markedly from what are at hand for either the Greek or Renaissance arts, in which the individual achievement was distinctly recognised, and the genius and circumstances of certain celebrated artists constitute of themselves the divisions of the subject. In Gothic sculpture, while we acknowledge that the art of the statue must in each case have been personal, we must perforce treat the Gothic works in the aggregate, grouping them under the headings of style, like mouldings or arch-shapes.

Dealing then with figure-sculpture as part and parcel of the church fabric, we might adopt the conventional headings of book-Gothic and label its divisions “ Transitional,” “ Early English,” “ Geometrical,” “ Decorated,” and “ Perpendicular.” Such a classification would, however, suggest that some particular impetus or origin of figure-technique lay in each of these architectural phases, and this can hardly be justified. Specific differences of corresponding value to those readily generalised for the mould¬ ings and arch-shapes fail us in the domain of the figure. We shall be safer with a simpler classification, and will divide our sculpture as “ First,” or “ Early Gothic ” ; “ Second,” or

“ Mid-Gothic ” ; and “ Third,” or “ Late Gothic,” with the implication that the boundaries in these divisions are indistinct, and the changes from period to period those of growth, not kind.

Still, in a wide sense we may (as our intro¬ duction has suggested) ally our classification of figure-sculpture to that of the architectural styles. For example, we can associate the First Gothic Sculpture with the sculpturesque dignity of first Gothic building, in which the massive Romanesque refined itself to the Gothic structural grace ; a corresponding progress can be traced in the efforts of the sculptor to realise the gracious facts of human beauty. Then, this skill attained, Mid- Gothic sculpture — just as its architecture — turned to variety of expression, and while enriching the simplicities of stone sculpture with the varied expressions of different materials, lost its purely architectonic intention in a romantic fulness of detail. And then the last century of Gothic sculpture, like the last of Gothic architecture, was one rather of hackneyed production by established guilds or schools of art. We find its work at one time the dignified accomplishments of an honoured and well-paid craftsmanship, at another the cheap wares of a commercial industry.

The succeeding four chapters will deal with the First or Early Gothic figure-sculpture, which

might be classified first by its occurrence in the fabric of Transitional Gothic style (1160 to 1200) ; then by examples which, along with the achievements of Early English building, grew in importance and freedom of style from 1200 till 1250; till from c. 1250 to 1275 (in connection with the Geometrical development of Early English art) the great works of English sculpture were produced, which in feeling and technique must be classed as the best, or, at any rate, the most characteristic of Gothic genius. But throughout there was no break or any marked step in the ever-increasing skill displayed by the architectural sculptor. To present our subject as divided into three at specified dates would be to make too much of them, and would disguise the distinctly continuous growth. A more effec¬ tive classification will be to treat the whole Early Gothic figure-sculpture in one division, with sec¬ tions for the separate architectural uses which gave a varying dignity and importance to it in the architectural scheme. Our first section therefore will present the head-stops, figure-corbels, figure- medallions, bosses, and other distinct architectural uses of figure-sculpture, which in first Gothic sculpture come in marked contrast to the pictorial scheme of Romanesque art. A second section will deal with the relief representations of the figure in spandrel and panel, which, starting in such Romanesque pictorial conventions as our last chapter illustrated, gradually acquired in the hands of the Gothic builder the statuesque motive of sculpture proper. A third section will illustrate the statue itself, the standing detached figure, which was the especial work of First Gothic Sculpture. And, finally, our concluding section will exhibit the recumbent statue or effigy, in the treatment of which sculpture, leaning from its first ideal, sought expressions of variety and in¬ dividuality which were the heralds of a change of feeling.

But it must be understood that such divisions do not mean separate schools or different stages of attainment in figure-style, any more than they do periods in the art. All these classes of sculp¬ ture came at the same time from the hands of men engaged in the same craft. It will be seen from our illustrations in this and the following sections that the head-stop of the label has a merit and style identical with what we see in the relief-carving, and that statue, effigy, and spandrel-figure reveal just the same artistic hand¬ ling. The distinctness of this simultaneous merit in every department is no doubt symptomatic of First Gothic art, when' the stone carver, after- matching himself against the traditional handi¬ craft of the Romanesque goldsmith, went away ahead of him in the exercise of his stone-craft,

English Mediaeval Figure-S culpture. 25

and established the style of Gothic sculpture. So much seems clear : and that then this stone- style affected the imager is probable. That the latter began to take lessons from the stone-carver maybe reasonably conjectured, though the almost complete destruction of English image-work, whether in metal, ivory, or wood, leaves us with only indirect evidence for the fact. Still we think it may be seen that by 1290 the gold¬ smith’s image by Master Torel at Westminster is ideal, but no longer of the Byzantine ideal of the earlier art. There has been a new inspiration founded on the stone technique of the effigy- carver. And in France, where both the architec¬ tural figures and wood and ivory images have come down to us in a fairly continuous sequence, we can, in fact, trace three stages in the art of the latter. We can see that the ivories lagged for some time behind the Gothic expression of the stone statues, retaining for long Romanesque conventions, and only towards the middle of the thirteenth century adopted the superior motives of the architectural figure. Not till the fourteenth century did there develop again the imagers’ technique which went away from the motives of stone sculpture. It is probable that the same, course of events took place also in England, and that it was in the fourteenth century that the Gothic craft of image-making began again to have its own patterns and motives of style apart from the architectural carving of the building.

First Gothic figure-sculpture, therefore, is note¬ worthy for the fact that it was a simple, straight¬ forward art, grown up in the stone-carving of a building. It owes to this its excellences, its directness, and adaptability to position and material. Thus it can be distinguished on the one hand from its Romanesque predecessor, whose technique began in copying the effects of the shrine-modeller and goldsmith, and, secondly, from the Mid-Gothic art, in which variety of materials in stone-carving produced effects which went away from the first ideal — wood, metal, and alabaster each creating their respective techniques, so that the motives of the church-furnisher parted company with those of the church-builder. We are treating our subject, then, for convenience under separate headings : but in expression of art, label-head and relief, image and effigy will be taken as all one and produced by one common inspiration.

SECTION (A).— LABEL-HEADS, CORBEL FIGURE-SCULPTURE, AND OTHER SMALL ARCHITECTURAL USES OF THE FIGURE.

It has been already pointed out that when Romanesque architecture passed into Gothic,

figure-sculpture was used in a new way. Old schemes of decoration were discarded and new evolved. And this re-arrangement of function will be seen to be not one of mere caprice, but to have its meaning in the very nature of the new Gothic style. Our illustrations have shown how in the Norman building pillar, capital, and arch¬ mould were on occasion thickly charged with figure-motives. But the capital which (see Figs. 29, 30, 31, 32, in Chap. II.) had been frequently made the vehicle for subject •• representations, keeps this function no longer in Early English art. Only in a subordinate way — as a quip or byplay in the leaf-sculpture — does some head or little figure (usually more or less of a grotesque) appear in the design of the Gothic capital.45 So, too, figure-compounded shafts such as we illus¬ trated from Kilpeek (Figs. 35, 37, Chap. II.) are unknown in Gothic style in England, and though less decisively, there is a similar rejection of the figure-subject from the arch - mould. In the elaboration of its great doorways, the later Nor¬ man art had made each voussoir a beak-head or human mask or some figure-subject set in a medal¬ lion (Figs. 36, 48, 62, Chaps. II. and III.). The continuity of the arch-stones was little regarded : but in Early English art the structural emphasis of the arch-line was insisted on with manifold lines of mouldings, and we seldom find this effect inter¬ rupted. In the richer doorways, where we have the traditions of Romanesque decoration con¬ tinued, and figure-subjects are ranged all round the arches, they are usually intertwined in a leafage which distinctly maintains the masonic cohesion of the arch (see Figs. 78, 79).

Now we must recognise in all this no mere shifting of a designer’s fancy, any more than any impotence or lack of feeling as to figure-use in decoration. It was rather that Gothic art, having found its theme in the vertebrate expression of stone building, refused to admit any discordant phrase. A figure-subject makes a distinct de¬ mand upon the attention, and so becomes a stop or focus of interest ; but Gothic implied a con¬ nective sculpture in pier, capital, and arch. No subject-sculpture could be allowed to break the supple rhythm of its building lines, because in the anatomy of stone-building itself lay the vehicle for sculpturesque expression.

For this reason there appears in the Transi¬ tional style of our Gothic a certain deliberate rejection of the figure-motives of the Romanes¬ que ; a certain poverty compared with the rich abundance of the later Norman sculpture; and a

45 The Font followed the capital : though often largely deco¬ rated with figure-subjects in Romanesque art (see Figs. 28, 49, and 53 in Chaps. II., III.), it is plain in Early English, and only after 1350 becomes charged again with figures.

26

English Mediceval Figure-Sculpture.

scantiness in figure-work which is marked too beside Continental usage. And this continues till almost the middle of Henry III.’s reign. Our first Gothic Cathedrals, e.g., the early quires and chapels of Canterbury, Chichester, Win¬ chester, and Lincoln, as well as the whole range of the north-country Early English buildings both secular and monastic — e.g., Fountains, Ripon, Beverley, Whitby, Rievaulx — if they have a beauty of architecture, whose quality can be best described as sculpturesque, yet get this out of the nobility of the architectural masses, not by the additions of sculpture. Figure-sculpture it¬ self finds hardly a place in the scheme of their building. The capitals are largely plain, the shafts unornamented, the arches mostly enriched with moulding only : base, buttress, and pinnacle owe their effect to their shapely contour and un¬ adorned constructional lines : the storied area- dings of the stately fronts are contrived to admit no statues : the doorheads, that in Norman style were brimming over with figure-subjects, are now mostly or entirely given up to geometrical or con¬ structional piercings. And even in the cases in Early English art where stone-carving has been abundant and rich, as in the nave of Lincoln or the quire of Ely, first Gothic sculpture for some eighty years in England clearly busied itself mostly with foliage : with some few excep¬ tions figure-treatment was absent.

It is accepted indeed that the Cistercians as reformers objected to the sumptuous use of sculp¬ ture which appeared in the later Benedictine schools of decoration. Now it was in the magnificent building of the Cistercians and of the Regular (reformed) Canons that the early Gothic style of England was largely conceived : their churches set the fashion of masonry in which our first Gothic was most often built. In the north of England, there was much of this early archi¬ tecture of the reformed monastic societies, and Cistercian and Augustinian churches were built, as it were, in protest against Benedictine luxury. Here the sculpture, if used at all, was merely em¬ ployed to emphasise constructional lines or points, and, in the true Gothic spirit, the ornament con¬ sisted in the modelling of arch, column, and win¬ dow themselves, and not in any sculptured fretwork applied to them. Thus, in the north of England, we find scarcely a trace of figure-sculpture proper till we reach the mid-thirteenth century.

In the West, however, and in the Midlands of England there is certainly a difference in this matter : figure-sculpture was less rigorously ex¬ cluded, though here too we can trace connec¬ tions between our first Gothic and the Augus¬ tinian and Cistercian buildings of Wales and the Welsh marches. Perhaps in this district

there was a counter-influence to Cistercian au¬ sterity in the arts of the Cluniacs settled at Much Weidock, as suggested in the last chapter. At any rate in the birth of western Gothic not a little figure-sculpture of capitals and arch-moulds appears at Glastonbury and Wells, and the me¬ dallion motives, which Romanesque art had created at Iffley and Malmesbury are continued without break into the full Gothic style. If in the treatment of Wells ( c . 1175) there is not that exuberance with which the Norman carver strewed his figure-work (compare for example the North Porch of Wells with the South Porch of Malmes¬ bury),46 still in corbel, label-head, on boss and capital, new occasions for the sculptor’s render¬ ing of human beauty and living form are multiplied. And it is to be noted that this is all now in accord with the principles of Gothic expression. Corbels are by their functions excrescences and the fresh starting points of construction. While it may be said that pier, capital, and arch are as connected chapters, the corbel comes like the head-line of a news paragraph. Accordingly the attention, which figure-sculpture attracts, gives the fitting emphasis to the corbel. So, too, the label-stop as the finish of the drip-mould ; the boss as the centre of the vault ; the pinnacles, and stops of the gable copings, and finally the gar¬ goyles or projecting spouts of the parapets, all may have the expression of their constructive functions helped by the interest that crystallises round figure-representation. It was the appre¬ hension by the Gothic artist of these proper opportunities for his skill with the chisel which separates him essentially from the antecedent Romanesque carver. The latter had continued with increasing dexterity the pictorial representa¬ tions of classic tradition, but was without appre¬ ciation of the scope of sculpture or of its meaning in architecture. But immediately that stone building threw off the traditional methods of Roman concrete, and the heat and fervour of experiments in stone structure evolved distinct Gothic forms of construction — which leant no longer on the wisdom of the ancients, but stood erect in their own right of science — then at once the Gothic sculptor showed himself as an artist with power of human feeling and a skill for its delinea¬ tion in stone, such as had lain dormant in the human race for nearly a thousand years.

So the expression of the human face became his instrument, upon which he was to play in many keys. The number of heads carved as

4C At Wells the relief panels on the porch-front and the martyr¬ dom of St. Edmond (see Fig. 82a) on the capitals are more foliage than figure. Inside there are label-heads and dragon-stops, but no great figure-subjects, as at Malmesbury, sit at the side of the porch, nor is there any tympanum sculpture of doorhead.

English Mediaeval Figure-Sculpture. 27

corbels and string stops in a mid-thirteenth-cen¬ tury church was almost endless. Destructions, determined and continuous, have been effacing them for six hundred years, but they still remain to us by the thousand, and the fine quality, vivacity, and variety of their treatment are aston¬ ishing. In neiriy all instances 47 they are formed of the same stone as the architectural mouldings in connection with them. Usually they must have been fixed in position along with the ashlar of the wall, and it is likely they were worked in the banker-shed along with the wall-stones, for thirteenth-century miniatures in manuscripts 48 show the carved work being dressed before fixing, and side by side with the facing stones. It is, of course, possible that in some cases the carving was from the scaffold, the block being built in rough, as is so usually done in the case of modern carving. But that they were left so intentionally for any time, and then carved as money came to pay the sculptor (our modern habit) is a theory which no evidence has yet been produced to justify. Indeed, we find very often in a series of heads here and there capricious substitu¬ tions of foliage, whose date is manifestly that of the walling around ; so that we must conclude that the whole was sculptured simultaneously, for there would seem to be no reason for carving some blocks with foliage and leaving others to be worked later. In certain cases head-stops (as in Salisbury Chapter-house) appear not to be built into the masonry, but to be face-blocks fastened in by a dowel behind, and in such cases after¬ carving was plainly possible. Still there can be little doubt that in most of the head-carvings of corbels and label-stops we have works contem¬ porary with the architecture in which they occur.

47 The Purbeck heads to be presently mentioned, and one or two of fine stone (either Bath or Caen) let into Douiting labels on the inside of the West front of Wells are the exceptions known to us.

48 For example see British Museum M.S. Cott. Nero. D.i.

FIG. 63. — BRIDLINGTON. Head in Cloister.

FIG. 64. — LICHFIELD CATHEDRAL.

Vault-corbel in north transept.

Thus they make a continuous record of head- sculpture which takes us from the earliest Gothic carving to the latest.

This head-sculpture appears at first to be some¬ what more advanced than the contemporary re¬ presentation of the figure. The Norman masks, such as those of the corbel-table (see Fig. 33, Chap. II.), cease after 1150 to be merely horrible, and in some instances, especially in doorways (see Fig. 48, Chap. III.), attain no little shapeliness. Thus, in the Ely cloister, side by side with the bull’s-eyed blocks on the Monks’ and Prior’s door¬ ways (see Fig. 54, Chap. III.) a head set in the label of another doorway which by its ornament seems contemporary, is of effective and pleasant modelling. Heads of a somewhat similar kind may be seen in similar position in the nave arcades of Wimborne Minster and elsewhere, our illustra¬ tion (Fig. 63) showing one from the beautiful Romanesque cloister of the Bridlington Angus tinians, which has the character of those of the Lincoln reliefs (see Figs. 44 and 46, Chap. III.). The date of all these may be about 1150.

By 1175, in the works of Transitional Gothic, examples of growing skill become frequent, as can be seen in the Ely west front.43 Heads at Oak¬ ham Hall, Rutland; a vault-corbel in the south transept of Hedon Church, Yorkshire ; two in the north transept of St. Cross, Winchester ; and two in the north transept 50 of Lichfield Cathedral (Fig. 64) are Gothic works which show the hard, vigorous execution of a new school of sculpture. Earlier in date and more elementary in modelling are the specimens in the south quire- aisle of St. Frideswide’s (the Cathedral), Oxford, and in the north porch of Wells Cathedral.

As has been already said, it was this western

49 In the Temple Church, London, the heads of the 1180 wall- arcade have been completely renewed or touched up, in a resto¬ ration (c. 1840) whose appreciation of Mediaeval art was that which gave us the “ Ingoldsby Legends.”

50 Only on the east side in the north bay are they of the first Gothic quire-work ; the rest have been restored.

28

English Mediaval Figure-Sculpture.

A

A. G.

B A. G.

(A) Vault-corbel, south transept.

(B) Label-head, nave (east bay).

FIG. 65. — WELLS CATHEDRAL.

(C) Capital, north transept.

cathedral which began at once to develop Gothic figure-sculpture in various directions. The figure- capitals of Wells will be dealt with presently : here we show heads ; some from capitals, but chiefly a series of corbel and label-heads from the triforium arcades, which have that variety of type which is symptomatic of a period when the hand of the artist was experimenting with ideas, and hardly yet able to express them. The earliest heads here are those of the transepts and eastern bays of the nave ; they are stiffly set upon stunted shoulders, and may be taken as carved before 1200. In expression our illustrations (Fig. 65) may be compared with the Daniel head .at Lincoln (Fig. 41, Chap. III.). But the types are various : we have in one the blunt scowl of ascetic severity (Fig. 65 a) ; in another the archaic grin, which is so singularly like that of early Greek art (Fig. 65 b) ; in a third a maenadic expression of ecstasy (Fig. 65 c), which occurs again and again in connection with the peculiar snaky foliages of the capitals at Llandaff (Fig. 66 a) as here in Wells Cathedral, and in the church of St. Mary's, Shrewsbury. There are proofs, therefore, in sculpture, as in architectural treatment, of a dis-

Head in Capital of Nave.

tinct western local school of art, working in its own stone and developing Gothic on its own lines,51 at Llandaff, Shrewsbury, and Lichfield, in

A. G.

FIG. 66. — (B) WELLS CATHEDRAL.

Label-head in west bays of nave, north side.

the sandstone; at Wells and Glastonbury in the local Doulting stone.

The west bays of the Wells nave, which are clearly later in date than those to the east, have label-stops and corbels with a larger type of head¬ carving, and of a smoother style (Fig. 66 b). Contemporary with these bays would come the beginning of the new cathedral at Salisbury, whose foundation stone was laid in 1220. We see there a succession of head-sculptures in white Tisbury stone begun probably about 1225, carried on through the whole building of the cathedral, and advancing step by step to the 1260 master¬ pieces of the chapter-house and quire screen. The earliest of the series would be in the triforium arcades of the quire and its transept ; and next those in the main transept and eastern bays of the nave (Figs. 67 A, B, c). As in the heads just men¬ tioned at Wells, advances are to be seen here on the earlier archaic types of Gothic art. While still mannered and dry, there is a rounder treat-

51 See the author’s “ History of Gothic Art in England," pp. 156, 157.

English Mediaeval Figure-Sculpture.

29

A A. G.

(A) Corbel-head, east bays of nave.

B A. G.

(B) Corbel-head in south-east transept. FIG. 6/. — SALISBURY CATHEDRAL.

C A. G.

(C) Corbel-heads in quire.

A A.g. FIG. 69.

Figs.

68

A

FIG. 68.

A.G.

B

FIG. 68.

(A and B) — Corbel-heads in quire. Figs. 69 (A and B) — Label-heads in quire. BOXGROVE PRIORY CHURCH.

B A. FIG. 6q.

A A.G.

ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL.

(A) Corbel-head in quire.

B A.G. C A.G.

SALISBURY CATHEDRAL.

(B) Corbel-head, east transept. (C) Corbel head, main transept.

FIG. 70. — PURBECK SCULPTURF.

English Mediaeval Figure-Sculpture

o

o

A - A. G.

WELLS CATHEDRAL.

Label-head west bays of nave.

B A.G.

SALISBURY CATHEDRAL.

Corbel-head west bays of nave.

E A. G.

SALISBURY CHAPTER.

Label-head of wall arcade.

C A. G.

WESTMINSTER CHAPTER.

D A. G.

WESTMINSTER CHAPTER.

Label-heads of wall arcade.

SALISBURY CHAPTER. Label-head of wall arcade.

I A. G.

DURHAM QUIRE. Corbel-head.

H A. G.

SALISBURY QUIRE SCREEN. Label-head of arcade.

G A. G.

SALISBURY CHAPTER. Label-head of wall arcade.

FIG. 71.— HEADS OF THE MIDDLE OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

English Mediceval Figure-Sculpture .

ment of feature, and less harshness of expression. Almost contemporary must have been the strik¬ ing Caen-stone corbels of Boxgrove (Figs. 68, 69) near Chichester, which show perhaps a greater archaism (the features being simply worked out in planes and the hair stiffly rendered in tight curls) but in their breadth of feature and no¬ bility of expression we have an earnest of the best Gothic achievements of head-sculpture.

In all the above the heads are of the stone of the walling : moreover we can trace in each instance, at Lichfield, at Wells, at Salisbury, and at Box- grove, a progress in technique from inexpert beginnings. This implies in each place a local development of craft. Yet at Salisbury and else¬ where there are heads which must be kept dis¬ tinct from these local free-stone carvings. We find head-corbels of Purbeck marble, which there is reason to suspect were carved at Corfe, in Dorset, and supplied ready worked to the churches. The vault-corbels (Fig. 70 a) of Rochester quire (C. 1220) and certain heads (Fig. 70 b, c) at Salis¬ bury (those which in the great transept and in the eastern transept come lowest in the walls, and would therefore be built in before the triforium labels) are fine examples of Purbeck art. Their execution suggests a strangely developed capacity in the Dorset quarryman,52 and that his craft-

52 Quarrerii is used in the accounts of the Eleanor Crosses, 1291, for the Corfe masons when they were supplying worked Purbeck marble in quantities.

A. G.

FIG. 72. — LINCOLN CATHEDRAL. Label-head in "Angel Choir.”

31

skill gave an impetus to the free-stone carver both at Salisbury and Boxgrove. The Purbeck heads at Salisbury are bold in design, and deeply cut so as to allow them to be seen from below in spite of their dark colour — for possibly they were not painted.53 The nature of the material no doubt contributed to the style, and since at Box¬ grove there is a large quantity of Purbeck pillar- work, we may think the flat-sided, deep cutting of the Caen-stone heads (see Fig. 68) imitated from it. The solution of this question will, however, be attempted more fully when we come to the discussion of the Purbeck effigies.

The latest or western bays of Salisbury nave, like those of Wells, have heads in white stone on a scale of importance, and of an execution which bring them within touch of the best period (Fig. 71 a and b). From 1250 onwards we may gather from all parts of England proofs of an extra¬ ordinary ability developed in the mediaeval stone- sculpture. The specimens we illustrate (Fig. 71) are drawn from Westminster chapter - house (c and d), from Salisbury chapter-house (e, f and g), from the quire screen (h), and from Durham quire (1). Also we give an example from the “ Angel Choir ” at Lincoln (Fig. 72). In each cathedral the working has been in a different stone — that of the local building — a fact which can leave us with scarcely a doubt that in each case we have workmanship of the local masons. We may thus appreciate the wide amount of artistic talent that was at hand for the purpose of mediaeval architec¬ ture.

It is unnecessary to point out the great advance of the execution over what had been done twenty years earlier. There is, moreover, in these heads, apart from the workmanship, a delicacy of senti¬ ment which strikes us as specially English be¬ side the robuster, fuller types of French sculp¬ ture. This is apart from the fact that head-stops and head-corbels are rare in continental Gothic, as rare,54 indeed, as the interior label-strings, to which our examples are mostly attached. But it would be out of place to enter here into any com¬ parison of English work with the sculpture abroad. Recognising that our label-heads are in style, as in stone, local, we can see variety of style everywhere, yet in all a level of attainment that is wonderfully kept up : and this art, though its best-preserved examples are now found in our larger churches, was exhibited in the smaller parish churches also, where remoteness and the

5:i At Rochester, however, the Purbeck has been at some period painted.

44 Head-corbels are found in the early Gothic of Maine and Anjou. The triforium of the church of Semur, near Auxerre, has heads in its arcade much as in England.

English Mediceval Figure-Sculpture.

A. G.

FIG. 76. — WELLS CATHEDRAL.

Vault-corbel in north transept.

carving of C. 1260, and the grotesque there will be presently mentioned ; here the corbel-head and base spurs (Fig. 73) will indicate that this island had its thirteenth-century carver, whose place was no mean one in the history of our sculpture.

It has been suggested that the excellence in the head was generally in advance of that of body- representation. In some corbels an attempt was made to introduce a good deal of the figure, and there is not uncommonly a contortion of attitude due to inexperience rather than intentionally grotesque. We illustrate this from the Oxford chapter-house of C. 1220 (Fig. 74), but it can be seen, too, in the Durham quire of C. 1260, and even in the beautiful figure we show (Fig. 75) from the staircase to the Wells chapter-house, also C. 1260. 55 The earlier corbel (Fig. 7 6) from the north tran¬ sept of Wells is free and graceful, but we must go to Crowland and Lincoln and to a date pos¬ sibly beyond 1270 for a well-constructed and satisfactory use of the figure-motive in archi-

A. G.

FIG. 73. — HAYLING CHURCH (NEAR PORTSMOUTH). Spur of base.

The corresponding corbel on the other side of the staircase is less powerful.

FIG. 77. — LICHFIELD CATHEDRAL. Arch-mould to north transept doorway.

FIG. 74. — OXFORD CATHEDRAL. Vault-corbel in chapter-house.

FIG. 75. — WELLS CATHEDRAL.

Vault-corbel in passage to chapter-house.

manner of building often necessitated the employ¬ ment of local talent. For example, at Hayling we have specimens of a fine and peculiar Caen-stone

English Mediceval Figure-Sculpture.

33

A. G.

FIG. 78. — LINCOLN CATHEDRAL. South doorway of “ Angel Choir.”

A. G.

FIG. 79. — WESTMINSTER CHAPTER HOUSE.

Moulding of doorway.

VOL. XIII. — C

tectural support. Once achieved, this regular pattern of angel bracket continued till the end of Gothic sculpture.

The introduction of the figure into the arch¬ mould made an equal difficulty for architectural sculpture. Abroad we get an attached series of brackets, applied to the voussoirs, and making canopied niches for the statues. The simpli¬ city and boldness with which this is done in the great doorways of Paris, Amiens, and Reims, and the fine scale of the whole, disguise, if they do not atone for, the awkwardness of the positions which are so given to the figures. In England, however, as far as we know (for many of our doorways have perished), this method did not find favour in our thirteenth century. The tradition here descended from the medallion arch-moulds of late Norman work, such as those of Barfreston and Malmes¬ bury (see Figs. 61 and 62 in Chap. III.), where in a connected trellis of arabesque each voussoir shows a figure subject. In mid-thirteenth century certain rich doorways, as in the west front of Dunstable and in the transepts of Lichfield, seem to revive this tradition. The arch-moulds of the transept door on the north side of Lichfield are sufficiently preserved to allow us to Illustrate its sandstone figure-carvings (Fig. 77) which are set in the outer and inner orders of the arch, while be¬ tween them the midway order is enriched with carving, but without figures. A similar arrangement of orders is seen in the more magnificent doorway on the south side of the so-called “Angel Choir” of Lincoln. The inner order of door-arch is carved with elegant seated figures in niches, which are, however, so set into the profile of the arch-mould that they do not break its contour. The outer order (Fig. 78) has in similar fashion little figures of about three-quarter length standing in the hollows of the leaf enrichment, and these tiny works of stone sculpture show all the naivete and grace of the modelled terra-cottas that have been found at Tanagra. The chapter-house doorways of Westminster and Salisbury have also moulds in which are figure-carvings. At Westminster (Fig. 79) leaf and figure twine together : at Salis¬ bury (Fig. 80) are to be seen the Virtues trampling on the Vices, and though each is set in a niche, the projection is kept within the curve of the arch¬ mould and does not break its lines. In attitude and action these little figures may compete with the Lincoln examples for delicate grace.

The figure-work of Gothic capitals, however, can stand on no such level, for, as has been indicated, it was only a caprice of the carving art. It never made itself of serious import, or achieved anything much beyond the success of a grotesque. Still, as a step in the progress of Gothic design, the figure-capital comes in place. Romanesque art had made picture-capitals in illustration of sacred

34

English Mediaeval Figure-Sculpture

A A.G.

WELLS CATHEDRAL, NORTH PORCH.

The Martyrdom of St Edmund.

B A. G.

WELLS, SOUTH TRANSEPT.

In west aisle.

C A.G.

WELLS NAVE.

In north aisle east bay.

DURHAM QUIRE.

In triforium north side.

E

LINCOLN.

Corbel in south-east transept.

F A.G.

LICHFIELD CHAPTER.

Capital of wall arcade.

FIG. 81. — FIGURE CAPITALS OF THE FIRST GOTHIC PERIOD.

English Mediceval Figure-Sculpture .

35

A. G.

FIG. 8o. — SALISBURY CHAPTER-HOUSE.

Moulding~of doorway, “The Virtues and Vices.”

story, and some of its first sculpture was the transfer of painted representation to carving. But as the capital grew smaller, the space allowed only the slighter scenes of symbolic figure-work (see Figs. 31 and 32 in Chap. II.), and so thirteenth- century art took it up. The solemnities of reli¬ gious feeling were the theme and inspiration of statue and relief ; but the capital was issued by the sculptor as his brochure, or rather novelette. Its aim was to give little stories of everyday life, or fables from the Bestiaries, or the Books of

A.G.

FIG. 82. — -LINCOLN CATHEDRAL.

Capital of door£in south quire aisle.

beasts, which represented mediaeval natural his¬ tory. At Wells, nave and transept have in their capitals (F igs. 81 A, B, and c) quite a library of such novelettes ; but we illustrate examples also from Lincoln (Figs. 81 e and 82), Lichfield (f), and Durham (d). This role of the story-teller passed on to the wood-carving of the latter part of the century, particularly to the miserere carvings of stalls, which we shall illustrate in their place.

The execution of these relief-carvings in the capital is generally slight and summary. They must be judged on the plane of their intention, and are really part of that reaction from serious¬ ness, that by-play of mockery, which in the Feasts of Fools, of Asses and such like, made buffoonery and grotesque a diversion of religion. And before leaving these lesser exhibitions of First Gothic figure-art, we should say a word on the thirteenth- century grotesque. Mediaeval sculpture was throughout markedly impressed by that back-cur- rent of art which, running counter to the ordinary motives of human beauty, introduces expressions of terror and contortion, aspects often indecorous and vulgar, dragons and monstrosities, or the strange lessons which magic and mysticism drew from animal life, a development whose significance has been discussed in Ruskin’s “ Stones of Venice.” The various expressions of grotesque certainly make a considerable feature in the whole sum of Gothic church-sculpture. A later chapter will therefore be specially devoted to it. Here we illustrate (Fig. 83) some examples which, belonging to the First Gothic sculpture, seem to carry with them the fine style of thirteenth-century art. The dragon from Lincoln (a) is dignified. And if such representations as those on the base of the door- shaft at Peterborough seem merely horrible, and in part a legacy from the truculent fancies of Norse heathendom ; if the devilry of such a face as that of the Oxford chapter-house (b) ; or of the Lincoln imps ; or of the Hayling head (d), is simply unclean and disgusting, still not a few of such thirteenth-century fancies (as for example the gargoyles at Chichester (f) and those two or three of 1240 on the south side of Ely quire) have with all their monstrosity and contortion a nobility of line and a statuesque breadth of treatment which rank them beside the great works of sculpture. In the little dragons and salamanders which at Wells (Fig. 83 e), Chichester (Fig. 83 g), and Hayling writhe and twine among the foliage, we have often the suggestion of animal movement, and the lithe beauty of it such as we look for in the naturalistic art of to-day.

E. S. Prior and A. Gardner.

Note. — Illustrations Nos. 64. 74, 75, 77, 8ie, and 83b are from photographs kindly lent by S. Gardner, Esq.. Nos. 63 and 66a are from casts in the Royal Architectural Museum, Westminster.

6

English Mediceval Figure-Sculpture.

A A. G.

LINCOLN CATHEDRAL.

Dragon on plinth, north side.

C A. G.

HAYLING CHURCH.

Spur of base.

E A . G.

WELLS CATHEDRAL.

Corbel in north transept.

B

OXFORD CATHEDRAL. Corbel in chapter house.

HAYLING CHURCH. Capital of font shaft.

F A. G.

CHICHESTER CATHEDRAL. Gargoyle on north side of nave.

G A. G.

CHICHESTER CATHEDRAL. North quire aisle.

PIG. 83.— GROTESQUES OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

Architecture and the Royal Academy.

A DISCUSSION.— IV.

BY PROFESSOR F. M. SIMPSON.

The discussion on “Architecture and the Royal Academy ” has suggested to me that a brief account of an exhibition held in the Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool, in the spring of 1895, may be of some interest, as it was arranged somewhat on the lines indicated by Mr. Ricardo in his article, and endorsed by Mr. Belcher. It was an Arts and Crafts Exhibition, and one room, 70 ft. by 35 ft., was devoted entirely to Architec¬ ture. In the circular sent out to architects, it was stated that the following were admissible : — (1) Drawings to scale, plans, elevations, sections, &c., either mounted on stretchers, or framed and glazed ; (2) photographs of executed work, if ac¬ companied by a plan or explanatory drawing; (3) perspectives, either mounted or framed, if accompanied by a plan ; (4) measured drawings and sketches of old work. The wall space allotted to each exhibitor was 30 sq. ft., but in some instances permission was given to exceed this. As a result 180 exhibits were hung, repre¬ senting about 60 architects. The dimensions of the room allowed drawings of considerable size to be shown, and amongst them were many half¬ inch scale working drawings. Each man’s work was hung together, no matter what it consisted of, and the effect was not bad, and by no means so motley as might have been expected.

The point of interest, however, is not so much that the exhibition was held, as how it was re¬ ceived. I may at once frankly state that finan¬ cially it was not a success ; but otherwise I think one may fairly claim that it was. The interest it aroused was considerable, not only amongst archi¬ tects, who warmly expressed their satisfaction with the experiment, but also amongst those of the gene¬ ral public who came to see it. The feeling of the latter was that the drawings shown meant “ busi- nes ” ; that there was no humbug about them, no make-believe ; that they didn’t pretend to be any¬ thing but what they were ; that they were honest representations of a man’s work. With this was coupled the sensation that it was pleasant to get a bit “ behind the scenes ” and see how things were done. As one man said to me, “ I like the exhibition, although I don’t understand all of it ;

I like it because it is a practical exhibition of a practical art.” This remark is not surprising when it is remembered that men who interest themselves in public affairs often have to deal with plans, and understand them better than architects sometimes imagine. They may not be able to grasp fully the architectural beauty of a plan or section ; that requires a trained imagina¬ tion ; but I deny that such drawings do not interest

them. Of course, many people are not interested in them, neither are they in the exhibitions at Burlington House. Equally true is it that there will never be the same enthusiasm over an exhi¬ bition of architectural drawings as over a picture exhibition. Apart from the fact that architecture has not so many admirers as painting, our ex¬ hibits are not the real thing, no matter whether they consist of models, perspectives, or working drawings. But although we cannot have the real thing in a gallery, no strong reason exists why we should not try to get as near to it as possible ; and a photograph supplemented by a plan and detail drawing will give one an insight into a de¬ sign, which no perspective, whether prepared in or out of an office, can convey.

Another point I should like to mention, which I fancy has not been touched upon before. An architectural exhibition conducted on practical lines can, I think, do a lot of good to builders, foremen, clerks of works, and workmen generally. The exhibition at Liverpool was thoroughly ap¬ preciated by many of these. Every evening several were to be found in the gallery studying, admiring, criticising the drawings. Of course, admission was free, but if such an exhibition as has been suggested could be held at the Academy, or elsewhere, one evening a week might well be set apart when the entrance fee could be small. Four men paying threepence each bring as much money as one man who pays a shilling, so it by no means follows that a reduced fee means less gate-money. More than that, I should like to see the masters of technical schools allotted a num¬ ber of free admission tickets for students. If the exhibition were held in the Academy, and the Council of that body decided that they could not afford to grant any free admissions, a few pounds spent on tickets by the London County Council, the Carpenters’ Company, and other bodies, for the benefit of their students, would not be thrown away.

But that has nothing to do with this discussion. I write merely to show that an architectural exhi¬ bition arranged on different lines from that of the Academy has, at least once, been held in England, and that it aroused considerable interest amongst architects, workmen, and some of the general public.

One more word. As our true exhibitions are held in the streets, why not have them catalogued? A board hung on each lamp-post giving the num¬ bers of the houses and the names of their archi¬ tects may be regarded as a suggestion pour rire, but it would at least enable us, as we walked through our towns, to know whom to bless and whom to curse, and no one would be likely to lodge a complaint that he had been pilloried !

Current A rchitecture.

o

3

8

FROM THE SOUTH. Photo : A. E. Cockerell.

FROM THE NORTH-WEST.

Photo: A. E. Cockerell.

“WESTBROOK,” GODALMING.

BALFOUR AND TURNER, ARCHITECTS.

Current A rchitecture.

39

Current Architecture.

“ Westbrook,” Godalming. — The plan of this house was partly governed by a desire to obtain the view of the town to the east for both the dining-room and the drawing-room without making external bay windows. The external walls are of Bargate stone with a half-brick lining, and are just under 2 ft. thick. The internal walls are of brick. The stone was obtained on the site and used with its natural face, irregular¬ ities being filled in with mortar in a similar way to Devon and Somerset buildings. Doulting stone was used for window and other dressings,

and the windows have gun-metal casements and lead lights filled with Crown glass. The floors are of stone and cement concrete, with a finishing of coke breeze concrete to which Oregon pine boards averaging about 16 in. wide are nailed. The chief staircase is of English oak with solid steps; the hall is panelled with the same wood. The drawing-room is panelled in deal painted white, and has an Austrian oak floor carried on deal joists, for dancing. The roof is covered with old hand-made tiles on in. vertical deal boarding. The architects were Messrs. Balfour and Turner.

4o

Current A rchitecture.

«LC.lw£E'

%fm li# *: 4 -/ » » ^ aH

“WESTBROOK,” GODALMING. GARDEN FRONT. BALFOUR AND TURNER, ARCHITECTS.

Current A rchitecture.

4i

THE LONDON AND COUNTY BANK, WANDSWORTH, PLANS. MESSRS. CHESTON AND PERKIN, ARCHITECTS.

New Premises for the London and County Banking Company, Limited, Wands¬ worth, S.W. — These premises, which have re¬ cently been completed and opened for business, occupy a prominent position in the High Street, near to the parish church. The illustrations suffi¬ ciently explain the general arrangement, style, and purpose of the building. Above the strong-rooms, etc., in the rear, is arranged a residence for the caretaker, with a private entrance in the side road. The banking hall is 19 feet in height, and is amply lighted by the large front and side windows, and clerestory windows above the roofs of the manager’s and inspector’s rooms respectively at either side. Accommodation is provided for four cashiers and thirteen clerks, in addition to the manager. The floors of the offices are paved with pitch-pine blocks, and the public space with Roman mosaic paving. The panelled and deco¬ rated ceiling of the banking hall is in fibrous plaster. The joinery generally and the office fittings are in American walnut, and have been specially designed by the architects in keeping with the style of the building. The strong-rooms are faced internally with white glazed bricks. The offices are warmed by means of hot-air stoves, and lighted artificially by electric light. Gas is also laid on throughout. A natural system of ventilation has been adopted by means of

Tobin fresh-air inlets, fitted with filters and regulating valves, foul-air extractors being pro¬ vided near the ceilings. Two sunburners are also provided in the banking hall to assist in the extraction of vitiated air, and also to light the office in the event of a temporary breakdown or failure of the electric light. Externally the buildings are faced generally with Ancaster stone, the plinths, pediments, cills, string courses, cor¬ nice and balustrade above, being of Portland stone from the Whitbed. The work was carried out by Messrs. Higgs and Hill, builders, and the architects are Messrs. Cheston and Perkin.

42

Books.

Photo: E. Dockree.

THE LONDON AND COUNTY BANK, WANDSWORTH. MESSRS. CHESTON AND PERKIN, ARCHITECTS. .

Books.

Manuel d’archeologie fran¬ chise.

C. Enlart : Manuel d' Archeologie Frangaise, depuis les temps m^rovingiens jusqu’a la Renaissance. Premiere partie : Archi¬ tecture, Tome I. : Architecture religieuse. xxand8i6pp. 405 illustrations. 8vo. Paris (A. Picard et fils.) 15 frcs.

This “Manual of French Archaeology” is to appear in two parts : the first devoted to Architecture ; the second to Sculpture, Painting, and Applied Art. The volume now under review is the first of Part I. ; the second, which will complete the part, deals with Civil and Military Architecture (including Monastic), and is in the press.

Few can write with authority on so vast a subject. M. Mohnier was at first asked to undertake the work, » but he could not accept the invitation. The name of M. Enlart is not yet so well known in England, but

he is well qualified for his task. Trained at the “Ecole des Chartes ” and at the “Ecole Francaise de Rome,” he has since written important books on Romanesque Architecture in Picardy, and Gothic Architecture in Italy and Cyprus ; besides a number of smaller works. He has, as “ Professeur suppleant,” occupied the chairs of French Archaeology at the “ Ecole des Chartes ” and at the Louvre, and has delivered a course of lectures on the same subject at the University of Geneva. In his preface, he states that he has found the collection and co-ordination of materials for his lectures the best possible preparation for this work. As to this particular volume, he claims to have visited every country, and nearly every . building, referred to therein.

The book begins, not with a bald glossary, but with an interesting description of the constituent parts of a

Books.

43

building, and of the details and ornaments belonging to each. When technical terms occur, Latin, Low Latin, Old French, and Provencal equivalents are often given with them. Then follows a chapter on proportions and general character, in which M. Enlart comes forward as an apologist for the Gothic style. He considers Gothic ornament natural in scale, and excellent in that it is so exactly adapted to the masonry to which it is applied. Deviations in axis and irregularities of construction may be compared with similar absences of mechanical exactness in Nature, and it is pointed out that some of these irregularities are intentional and reasonable, as when a church is left without windows on the side facing the mistral or sea gales. An especial warning is given against reading symbolic meanings into results of inaccuracy or carelessness.

An interesting chapter on the life of artists in the Middle Ages includes some striking instances of architects travelling far in connection with their work. An ambassador from St. Louis met one as far away as China, in a.d. 1253. There are given, also, details as to architects’ emoluments and the contracts that bound them. We are met at once with the fact that individual copyright did not exist. It must not be inferred from this, that architects did not put a high value on themselves and their works, any more than from the fewness of the great names that have been preserved. This fewness is due to the destruction of so many inscriptions and records, rather than to modesty on their part. Instead of copyright there was a guild monopoly, and the guild was a very close one, which guarded its secrets well.

Other chapters of general character, and general interest, deal with funds available for building during the period with which the book deals, the transport of materials, their re-employment, copying and archaism, changes, and restorations, the reasons for analogies between different countries and districts, and the relative value (so often discussed before) of architectural and documentary evidence. Warnings are given as to some pitfalls likely to entrap the inexperienced and unwary when studying texts.

After this introductory section come five others, de¬ voted to the five great periods of French Architec¬ ture, viz. — (1) Roman and Merovingian; (2) Carlov- ingian, including the baptisteries ; (3) Romanesque ; (4) Gothic ; (5) Renaissance, till the final disappear¬ ance of all Gothic feeling and forms. Each section begins with a study of the origins of the style of the period with which it deals, and of its general character. It then details the development of the building as a whole, and of its parts and ornaments during the time. The main schools of each period are indicated, but no attempt is made to define their exact boundaries. This cannot yet, and per¬ haps never can, be done, the overlapping and inter¬ penetration of styles was so great. If they are ever defined, Mr. Enlart is convinced that they will follow the limits of provinces or lordships rather than of dioceses ; it was vassalage that kept artists, as other folk, tied to particular lands. Great attention is also

paid to the spread of French styles to other lands, but M. Enlart does not exaggerate France’s supre¬ macy even in the Gothic period. It is plain, for example, that he recognises the great independence of the development of English Gothic, though he points out that our Norman style is the same thing as the Romanesque of the duchy, and can trace influences from the schools of Champagne (William of Sens) and Anjou, as well as Normandy, in the Gothic period. He considers it especially worthy of re¬ mark that the Cistercians, who did so much to spread French Gothic abroad on the Continent, built so little (he cites only Roche and Fountains Abbeys) in that style here. Mr. Bilson’s paper on the beginnings of Gothic* is discussed, but it is de¬ cided that the locality of the first ribbed vault cannot yet be definitely settled. English work in France itself is referred to, and England receives the credit of having taught Norway its Norman architecture, and Gothic as well. In Sweden, this English Gothic met French, brought thither, in 1287, by Etienne de Bonneval and his fellows, who were commissioned to build a cathedral at Upsala on the model of the Paris cathedral of Notre Dame.

To the Renaissance, little space is devoted as compared with that given to the two preceding styles, but a good account is given of its introduc¬ tion into, and development in France, with a list, accompanied by short notices, of the chief workers in the style there.

The book ends with a chapter on accessories of ecclesiastical architecture, such as pavements, altars, tabernacles, fonts, screens, and pulpits. These are dealt with here, rather than in Part II., for two reasons, viz. — (1) that they are often part of the masonry, and (2) that they are so important liturgi- cally, that a complete idea of an ecclesiastical build¬ ing cannot be obtained without considering them. Stained glass is, however, left with Painting and Sculpture for the Second Part.

The work is written in an interesting style, and every point' in it is illustrated by copious references to examples. Each section is followed both by a bibliography, and by a list of buildings, classified according to departments. These lists will make the manual especially valuable to those who like to spend “holidays among the glories of France.”

The illustrations include half-tone plates from the excellent photographs of the “ Commission des Monuments Historiques,” and from others by the author, and reproductions of pen drawings, of vary¬ ing merit as such, but generally good, and always well chosen to explain the points in connection with which they are introduced.

The book is worthy to become, as its originators wish that it should, the standard manual on the subject of which it treats.

G. H. Palmer.

* “ Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects,” 1899 and 1902.

44

Books.

The pavement masters of siena

(1369-1562).

“ The Pavement Masters of Siena (1369-1562).” By Robert H. Hobart Cust, M.A., Magdalen College, Oxford. Handbooks of the Great Craftsmen. Edited by G. C. Williamson, Litt. D. Price, 5s. net. London : Geo. Bell & Sons.

The history of the pavement of the Cathedral of Siena covers the years from about 1350 to our own day. The greater part — particularly those portions anterior to the sixteenth century — has been lately almost entirely renewed by copying the original panels both in materials and method of workmanship; and is chiefly valuable to us now as a copy of the greatest church pavement of the Renaissance, magnificently typical of Italian art of that time; so typical, indeed, that had we but little else to go upon, it would not be impossible to construct a theory of the manner of that art in other directions.

A pavement has always played an important part in architecture. The older literature and legends of the East — -the first home of art — tell us with much particularity of the pavements in actual buildings, and in story. To portray or to symbolise the mysteries of the heavenly bodies, the waters of heaven and of the earth beneath, the chief natural changes of the year, on the floors of their temples and buildings of import¬ ance was a favourite custom of the early builders. Pausanias describes the polished marble floor like unto a lake of black water, before the great ivory statue of Zeus in the Temple of Olympia, which reflected the figure and lighted lamps, as it were in the sea of heaven. In Roman pavements and later in those of Byzantine time and influence, as in Sta. Sophia and St. Mark’s, the idea of water, the “ glassy sea,” can be seen typified. This symbolism travelled westwards with the knowledge of eastern art, and Gothic cathedrals in Italy and the north give us pave¬ ments adorned with representations of the four rivers of paradise, the zodiac, the seasons, or the labyrinth, mysteries bound up with the lives of men.

But the pavement of Siena strikes a different note. Except for a compartment of the nave floor illustrating a wheel, which we may conceive to be a survival of a labyrinth, and some noble representations of the virtues, which are among the earliest work (presumably executed between 1350 and 1400) now remaining in the Church, there is little to suggest the earlier Gothic pavements. We find the subjects of the panels of the floor to be scenes of classical allegory, and — in greater numbers — pictorial representations of biblical events. Strong as these works are in perfection of “ line ” drawing, as for example in the fine series of sibyls in the north and south aisles ; and in greatness in design, as in the “ Allegory of Fortune” by Pinturic- chio, the pavement suffers in part through its extra¬ ordinary pictorial quality. “ The Expulsion of Herod,” for instance, a vast subject picture crowded with figures recalls an early Italian battle piece. In the “ Massacre of the Innocents ” we think of the arrange¬ ment of Botticelli’s “ Calumny.”

If the object of a pavement is to represent subjects in marble or stone inlay, which we are accustomed to

see treated with great success on painted panel or canvas, then some portions of the Siena pavement are without a rival ; but we may assert that such a height of pictorial representation is not the fittest form of pavement art ; and that, remarkable as they are, the “ Relief of Bethulia,” “ The Expulsion of Herod,” and the “ Massacre of the Innocents,” do not give the same sense of fitness which is aroused by the simpler representations of the “ Sibyls,” the “Justice,” “Fortitude,” or the “David”; those, in fact, which belong to the early period in the pavement history. If this is the case in the work of the full Renaissance, it is still more apparent in the later works of Beccafumi and his followers, and in the modern cartoon-like panels of the last century. The varying materials of stone, marble, or mosaic, cannot compete with the fine qualities of paint or tempera. Simple and dignified design is preeminently necessary in a floor. While a “ Massacre of the Innocents ” will make a mosaic panel of movement and pathos, on a floor it has a look of being dropped from a wall ; on the other hand a labyrinth or a representation of the Zodiac would make dull paintings ; but on a floor, as we know is the case at Ravenna, Chartres, or Otranto, their effect is fine, and is one which arouses and stimulates the imagination.

All this may be owing to the simple reason that a picture on a floor is difficult to see and understand by reason of its position. The prevailing habit of one art to imitate another, as here at Siena the stone- worker imitates the painter, does not affect us in other cases. We admire the Flemish tapestry, the picture woven, in close copy of a painting ; on the wall it is right, on the floor it would become accursed ; and I think Mr. Cust says truly of Beccafumi, where he speaks of his discarding the old graffito method in his outlines for a greater use of parti-coloured marbles, “ Even now it is doubtful whether the results are so practically durable or so artistically satisfactory on the floor as the older work. It would seem they, in a sense the apotheosis of this species of work, should be set up perpendicularly so that the full effect of their superb draughtsmanship could be fairly perceived and appreciated.”

Mr. Cust has given us a very interesting account of the craftsmen of the Siena pavement and of the work itself as it now is. Research has enabled him to determine in large measure its authors and dates. His book as a handbook is admirable ; well arranged, clearly printed, and well illustrated with pians and reproductions from photographs. The visitors to the Cathedral will find it useful, while as a book of refe¬ rence it is all that is needed. We may regret, how¬ ever, that it was decided, as the preface declares, to omit criticism. Artists can make up their own minds as to the fitness or otherwise of some of the work for a pavement ; but as the book is likely to be used by the student and the amateur, a critical chapter might with advantage have been added. The book, how¬ ever, could not have been written without some ex¬ pression of view, as the extract quoted above shows.

Gerald C. Horsley.

THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, FEBRUARY, I903, VOLUME XIII. NO. 75.

HOUSEBREAKING IN THE STRAND. DRAWN BY MUIRHEAD BONE.

Architecture and

A DISCUSSION. V. ( Conclusion .) i. BY ALEXANDER GRAHAM.

The question of devising some satisfactory mode of representing architecture on the walls of an exhibition gallery seems as far from solution as it was in earlier days, when the Royal Academy took up its new quarters in Burlington House, painting and sculpture finding ample accommoda¬ tion in lordly galleries, while architecture was compulsorily housed in a small chamber of any¬ thing but lordly proportions. Year after year comes the same lament that this Architectural Room is a failure, the contents being uninstructive to the student, and equally unattractive to the sight-seeing public. And then comes the outcry that the responsibility for such failure comes from within the walls of the Royal Academy, and not from without.

A little consideration of the whole subject by any unprejudiced architect may assist in the solution of a problem which has already entered the controversial stage. On the one side we have the Council of the Academy, the recognised authority on national art, prepared with . open hands to receive for exhibition any meritorious work by painter, sculptor, or architect. With the first two there can be no difficulty, for their work, either with brush or chisel, is unmistake- able evidence of individual skill. But with the architect the case is totally different. The work submitted by him for exhibition is neither more nor less than a representation, either pictorial or geometric, of a building or parts of a structure of some kind or other, and, consequently, must be judged from another standpoint. Such exhibits are not necessarily the work of architects, but are, in most cases, the handiwork of professional draughtsmen specially trained to make pretty pictures to catch the public eye. There was a time when architectural drawing was rightly regarded as a technical art, and T-square, rule, and compasses were the principal implements employed by an architect to convey his ideas to paper. Drawings of this character will be found to prevail in works on architecture of the eigh¬ teenth century, and elaborate specimens, prepared by architects of high repute in the earlier half of the nineteenth century, may still be studied in portfolios in architectural libraries. But the most noticeable examples of pure architectural drawing may be seen in the Burlington Devonshire collec¬ tion, where the handiwork of Palladio, Inigo Jones, and other masters of art may be studied side by side. These productions are, in many

VOL. XIII.— D 2

the Royal Academy.

cases, supplemented by sketches of modelled and decorative work, sufficient to convey the archi¬ tect’s ideas of scale, proportion, and fitness in the composition and adornment of his building. But this method of drawing, which achieved such admirable results, would be regarded with some¬ thing akin to contempt by the pictorial draughts¬ men of our own time, and is not likely to find favour in an age which encourages sham perspectives, false accessories, and impossible skies.

Some few years ago I was inspecting the architectural drawings at the Royal Academy Exhibition, when the tomb-like silence of that restful chamber, known as the Architectural Room, was broken by female utterance, “ Oh, what a pretty building ! ” I turned round and found only two other occupants, a man and a woman. Waiting an opportunity, I examined the drawing which had stirred female emotion. Yes ! It might fairly be called a pretty building, with its stately white facade, whether of brick or stone, terra-cotta or marble, it was impossible to say. Shadows were there, such as can only be seen under a tropical sun, nameless birds hovered in the cloudless sky, and a carriage and pair was dashing up the spacious causeway. In a shadowy corner was the inevitable policeman, and near him was a small bareheaded boy, gazing with wonder at the monumental edifice. How I pitied that poor boy in the blazing sunshine ! Then, taking note of the town that was to be adorned with this *• pretty building,” I resolved to pay a visit there when an opportunity offered. And what did I see ? A long fagade of dark red brick with a northern aspect, in a narrow, ill-paved street that would have been fatal to the springs of a well-appointed carriage. And for want of better material to cover the wall space of one poor little gallery, the Council of the Royal Academy are compelled, as a matter of necessity, to admit similar productions, commonly called architectural drawings. Can you blame them ?

To suppose that the public are likely to be attracted by pictorial representations of buildings, or, in my opinion, by architectural drawings of any kind may be dismissed as hopeless. They see in the galleries devoted to painting and sculp¬ ture the creations themselves of the sculptor and painter face to face. In the Architectural Room they do not see the architect’s creations, but only pictorial attempts of various degrees of merit, all necessarily ineffectual to represent them. So much of the pictorial art as finds place in an architectural drawing is an endeavour to repre¬ sent, with more or less effect, the dimensions of a

48 Architecture and the Royal Academy.

building, its symmetry, proportions, grace of line and traits of invention. But an architectural drawing entirely fails to make felt the structure's weight and mass, or to exhibit any skilled combi¬ nation of the forces of down pressure, thrust, and resistance which it embodies. The nobility of aspect, never absent from an ancient masterpiece of architecture, is a testimony to its having been conceived as an embodiment of these, quite as much as a presentment of grace, symmetry, and proportion of line and surface. And in the realised combination of all its factors lies such a struc¬ ture’s supreme charm. In the Architectural Room no indication is possible that, in the con¬ ception of any design, one ounce of ponderable matter has been consciously dealt with. If, therefore, a work of architecture can only be fully judged in realised combination of all its factors, and if none but a skilled architect can form an approximate forecast of their realised expres¬ sion, it is surely desirable to impress upon the general public their absolute and hopeless incapacity to pass judgment upon architectural designs.

It is a matter of regret that there are no present indications of a return to the old order of honest architectural drawing, and that, in spite of continued ill-success, the prevailing custom of representing buildings by little pictures, admirably adapted for books and serial publications, should be encouraged. Perhaps the day may come when geometric drawings to a large scale in line and colour, and perspective sketches to a very small scale (sufficient to indicate the general appearance of a building), may find favour with the architect. And if the Council of the Royal Academy were to make known their sympathies with him by an intimation that pnetorial drawings were to be of limited size, and that geometric drawings and details of ornament and decorative features would be judged on the score of archi¬ tectural merit rather than as displays of draughts¬ manship, a step would be taken, in my opinion, in the right direction.

It is not essential, nor is it desirable, that such drawings should be of that elaborate character which is the marked characteristic of the handi¬ work of successful students in the Ecole des Beaux Arts. Nothing can be more beautiful, as examples of architectural drawing, than the meri¬ torious studies of the Pantheon by M. Chadanne, or the restoration of the Baths of Diocletian by M. Paulin. Few of our students, entering the arena of practical architecture, could find leisure, after the office day work, for such laborious undertakings ; but, such is the skill displayed by many of them in competitive work submitted for our annual prizes and studentships, there is little

doubt they would hold their own in any inter¬ national competition.

Our period and country give rich opportunities to the art of architecture. The growth of munici¬ pal life, the spread of education, and the munifi¬ cence of citizens in bequeathing works of art to adorn the galleries of our great towns are among them. The Vestry Hall of a previous generation has given place to the Town Hall with its stately chambers and fayade of palatial aspect. The village school has been superseded by educa¬ tional buildings of almost monumental character, and galleries embellished with painting and sculp¬ ture are finding favour with a better-informed population. It is within the range of possibility that, contingent upon a short period of peace and prosperity, these newly-formed municipa¬ lities may be competing with each other in the near future in the erection of buildings sumptuous with marble and mosaic, and embellished with the best creations of both painter and sculptor. Nothing could tend more to further such a desir¬ able result, for the national benefit, than an exhibition at Burlington House of drawings, sketches, and models, by the architect, the painter, and the sculptor, embracing the chief constructive and decorative features of one or more notable buildings in course of progress. Such exhibits placed together in the same gallery would bear testimony to the brotherhood of art.

2. BY D. S. MacCoLL.

The discussion on the architectural exhibi¬ tion at the Academy has run its course through several numbers of the Architectural Review.* I am to attempt a summing up, and to add anything that occurs to an observer interested but not im¬ plicated in the matter.

Mr. Ricardo’s article, from which the discussion started, contained a criticism and a definite pro¬ posal. The criticism was, in brief, that (1) the space allotted to architecture in the summer exhi¬ bitions is too small to allow of proper illustration ;

(2) that proper illustration would consist of work¬ ing drawings, including plans, sections, and details to ^ inch scale, models also, and photographs of completed work, at the discretion of the exhibitor;

(3) that proper illustration does not include the pictorial perspectives furnished by professional draughtsmen : that these form the bulk of the present exhibitions ; that they are there in the vain hope of attracting popular interest to archi¬ tecture by mimicry of the adjoining pictorial

* October, 1902, by Messrs. Ricardo, Norman Shaw, Belcher, and R. Blomfield ; November, by Mr. Ernest Newton; Decem¬ ber, by Messrs. Basil Champneys and Beresford Pite ; January, 1903, by Prof. Simpson.

49

Architecture and the Royal Academy.

exhibition, and that they are there in this abun¬ dance by direct encouragement in the tradition of selection and hanging. Perspectives, he urged, should be small-scale explanatory sketches by the architect to give a general idea of grouping.

Mr. Ricardo’s proposal was that the summer exhibition should be abandoned to the present tradition, making itself as popular as it may, and that a supplementary exhibition should be held in the winter months, when the Academy is already open for the Old Masters. Ample space might then be found for an exhibition such as veritable students could approve, and architects who at present abstain might feel disposed to take part.

Mr. Ricardo’s criticism brought out a very interesting statement of the Academical view from Mr. Norman Shaw and Mr. Belcher, to be considered in a moment ; but first there is a more radical reply to be disposed of. In the view of Mr. Blomfield and Mr. Champneys not only the Academy exhibition, but any exhibition of archi¬ tecture by drawings is futile. Of this view it may be said that it will commend itself rather to the men whose ideas and methods, and also their position as architects, are settled, than to the younger and less reputed. An exhibition has two possible virtues : advertisement for the exhibitor, and instruction to be gained from other exhibitors. The man who has won his place may have got beyond the need, or at least the desire, of the second, and he may be chary of giving up his designs to the inevitable cribbing that follows successful work ; but the beginner is more fluid in his ideas, more eager to learn from contem¬ poraries, and he may be glad to show, not to the public, but to the fellow artists who in the first instance give him his reputation, of what he is capable.

Granted, then, that there is to be an exhibition, we now have it, under the hand of two acade¬ micians, that within the Academy as without, the present exhibition is condemned. Both are at one with Mr. Ricardo in disapproving the pictorial perspective. If ever that has been the darling of the hanger’s tradition, it is now, we may take it, to be black-listed. Mr. Norman Shaw’s picture of things from within is not that of complacent hangers displaying, from embarrassing profusion, models of what ought, in their view, to be dis¬ played. They are revealed as making the best of a poor business. The small room is too big really. There is not enough of good work to go round its walls. And the academic appeal to architects is to rally, to send no more of those pictorial perspectives, to revert to severe pro¬ fessional methods of drawing, and to send in those ample working drawings that they have fondly supposed there was no space for. Here, then, is

one misunderstanding and delusion very usefully cleared away.

Mr. Ricardo’s black picture, rearranged in this fresh light, shows as follows : — There is no need for a winter exhibition, because at present there is more than room for all drawings of the right sort sent in ; all that is wanted is more of the right sort, and none of the right sort are over¬ looked. (Mr. Pite, it should be noted, is sceptical on this head.) We may take it, however, that the Academy is not, at present, prepared to admit photographs. Mr. Shaw throws his weight rather into the scale of highly-finished drawings, such as are made by French Prix de Rome students. It is urged, in reply, not unreasonably, that to demand this standard of drawing from working architects would mean bringing in the outside professional draughtsman, whom we have just dismissed, in a new role, and confusing the issue afresh between the merits of the thing represented, the building, and the charms of technique in its representa¬ tion. Mr. Champneys and Mr. Pite are all for the actual working drawings, with no titivation for exhibition purposes, and Mr. Pite urges that framing and glazing should not be enforced. The idea is that architects should address one another in the current language of the workshop, by the indications that are perfectly intelligible to them¬ selves, and with the least disturbance of their actual work for purposes of parade. Mr. Simpson points to a provincial exhibition, successfully arranged in accordance with Mr. Ricardo’s ideas, and demands greater facilities for the visits of students.

Such being, in sum, the agreement and diver¬ gence of the views expressed, I will add the ob¬ servations that occur to me on the subject.

i. The Exhibition and the Public. — Archi¬ tects will surely be wise if they make up their minds to it that the public who will take the trouble to understand architectural drawings of any kind, or who, having taken the trouble, will be competent to appreciate, must always be a small one. Mr. Belcher’s idea that “ in time the public would also come to appreciate how much is due to right proportions and to proper relations and scale of each part to the whole building . .”

is, I fear, an amiable dream. The number of peo¬ ple who appreciate all this will continue to be a meagre company outside of the profession, and what is more, very limited inside of it. To think it unnatural that only two visitors enter the architectural room for every two thousand in the painting rooms is to misconceive the situation. If there were only good pictures in the painting rooms these would be as empty as are those of the National Gallery. In the matter of painting the Academy has definitely capitulated to public taste.

50 Architecture and the Royal Academy.

It has no teaching, no convictions, holds up no • standard ; it is not an academy at all, but a universal provider. If this were profitably pos¬ sible in the case of architecture, the same thing would have happened. But drawings, even of the worst kind of architecture, have so feeble an attracting power on popular taste that the efforts of the most pictorial perspective-maker have not compromised the architectural room beyond re¬ demption. To suppose that people will be tickled by a pictorial perspective after a debauch of pic¬ tures, is like expecting a child to be corruptible by bread thinly buttered after unlimited cream tarts. By the nature of things, then, rather than by their own virtue, the architects alone in the Academy have still a respectable position that defies their efforts to lose it. If no pictures were in the adjoining rooms it is conceivable that by this time the architects of the popular art journals, the designers of art-nooks and all the rest of it, might have made a popular show of architecture in the Academy ; as it is, they have not a chance : the bad picture is too much for bad architecture.

The architects, then, may thankfully resign themselves to seeing, in their Academy exhibition, instead of a bait for the obstinately shy public, a possible influence on students of their art, a place where a sense of honour and shame might be kept acute, and a premium put upon the right am¬ bitions. The smaller the room the more intense may be the effect produced. The managers of the exhibition ought to go beyond selection, and actively invite the thorough representation of notable work. Better four good buildings on the four walls than a job lot of four hundred. And let them be assured that the more they aim at doing the best thing for their students, the more they will interest and influence the perceiving part of the public. Severity will not alienate them ; paltering does. The difficulty of under¬ standing the conventions of architectural drawings has been very much exaggerated. To an intelli¬ gent man there is nothing inscrutable in an elevation, a plan, or a section. Every man who wishes to find his way makes use of a map. It is only in a few matters, like staircases, that the architect’s drawings call for a small exercise of spatial imagination. The mystery in architectural drawings is not what the lines stand for, is not the construction, for that may be learned, is not the planning, whose convenience may be appreciated ; it is beauty of design that is the mystery. The man who has the clue to this will find architec¬ tural drawings neither dull nor difficult; to the man who has not they can only be a bore.

2. Perspectives. — It is not, then, for the perceiving part of the public that the pictorial additions to perspectives are required; they are

sauce for the artless client, and in decency should be shown to him only in camera. But the re¬ action against these dressings of perspectives might, it seems to me, do injustice to the uses of the perspective itself. The fictitious perspective is mischievous, but in many cases a diagram is really called for to realise the effect of the building, given the actual spaces round it. If these are not taken into account, the perspective is fictitious. But suppose the width of existing streets or spaces taken into account, and that the build¬ ing has a feature like a dome, set back from the street elevation. In the conventional elevation, which supposes the eye to be at the level succes¬ sively of each part drawn, the dome projects above the roof-line by the whole of its actual height. I defy most draughtsmen to guess accu¬ rately at the true effect from the other side of the street by an inspection of plan and elevation only. A diagram would have to be constructed by the designer for his own purposes, and this would be a proper part of his exhibition apparatus. Con¬ ventional perspectives, moreover, of the bird’s- eye sort, are very useful in giving a general idea of dispersed groups of buildings ; not of their aspect, but of their constitution as plan and elevation. Familiar instances are Loggan’s views of colleges, which are not reliable in detail, but enable one to grasp easily the setting out of these buildings. The policemen and hansom cabs should be reduced to their true function, which is to give a useful reference for scale. To serve this purpose their scale must not be fictitious.

3. Models. — Some years ago models were urged upon architects as more nearly approach¬ ing the real thing than drawings. Mr. Blomfield has enumerated various drawbacks : I may point out another in their ordinary use. We see them as toy-like objects from above. To get anything like the real aspect they should be supplemented with a screen, pierced with eyeholes at a height corresponding to the height of a spectator’s eye on the scale of the model. Otherwise they only serve the purpose of the bird’s-eye views referred to above.

4. Photographs. — Mr. Newton is surely right in his contention that photographs are the most satisfactory common term for comparing completed buildings, and the least misleading means of judging what any single building looks like. A picture of a building is one thing, viz., a pattern selected out of the lines, surface, and shadows of a building, with some humouring for the picture’s sake ; and we all pictorialise a build¬ ing that pleases us at all as we look at it. But the uncompromising account of the facts is another thing, and it is the thing we want for judgment, without the picturesque draughtsman's bias pei-

Notes.

5*

verting it. From most of the picturesque draughts¬ man’s efforts, it may be added, one can learn precious little about the architecture, especially when he employs a manner proper to thumb-nail sketches on a drawing several feet in extent.

Photographs, then, would seem to be the proper supplement of the architect draughtsman's work in an exhibition. There is one point, how¬ ever, that has been a little lost sight of through¬ out the discussion. The summer exhibition at the Academy is only one moment of an exhibition that is going on all the year round. This exhibi¬ tion takes place in the pages of architectural periodicals like our own Review. Now a photo¬ graph, unless of large size, is, like a small drawing, a tiresome thing to look at on a wall : it is much more comfortably visible on the printed page, adjustable in the hand. This fact seems to indi¬ cate the reviews as a natural exhibition place lor photographs and small drawings, while the Academy is the necessary place for those larger working drawings that cannot be printed on a page without inconvenient reduction. The fact, I may add, that so wide an all-the-year-round exhibition is open to architects, makes the duty of the Academy to enforce a high standard the more easy, because there need be less fear of injustice by exclusion and a large review of material is ready to hand. Our policy, it may not be out of place to say here, in this Review, is to present, liberally, material that has one claim or another to be considered in such a sift¬ ing. We present it, as in an exhibition, without comment, reserving that for the really outstanding cases.

5. The Winter Exhibition. — May I return, last of all, to Mr. Ricardo’s suggestion, for the

No

The discussion on architectural drawing and its exhibition is brought to a conclusion in the present number, with the result, we may hope, of some clearing up of ideas on that subject. It will be immediately followed by the discussion of a more fundamental question, that of architectural education. This will be dealt with in the follow¬ ing way : — Before inviting an interchange of views and projects, we shall publish a series of state¬ ments, as full and exact as possible, of the exist¬ ing systems of education, not only in the various British centres, but also in France, Germany, and America. This comparative survey will furnish a ground-work for criticism, and we invite the close attention of theorists to this “Blue Book” work when they come to express their view of

purpose of pointing out that, oddly enough, for the first time, I suppose, in the history of its winter exhibition, the Academy this year has given a room to architecture. The architecture, it is true, is that of one Old Master, Daedalus to wit. But in this fact, I think, we may see an opening for an exhibition that would meet Mr. Shaw’s desire for scholarly drawing of monuments, and also Mr. Ricardo’s for ample illustration of inte¬ resting modern work. The difficulty with an aged body like the Academy is to establish a new precedent ; the difficulty, for it, is to annul the precedent once established. Here is the prece¬ dent dropping from the sky (or coming up from the shades). Let the architects claim it for es¬ tablished that they now have proprietary rights in the gallery to the right of the entrance at winter exhibitions ; that there is to be an archi¬ tectural “ Old Masters.” Such an exhibition might include studies of old work such as Mr. Schultz did in Greece and Constantinople. But it might also include the drawings of deceased Masters up to the most recent, as is the case on the painting side. The precedent, it may be remarked, has set out with a fine carelessness of established rules : there are photographs in it, and casts and models, as well as drawings.

The upshot of our discussion then is, that we may look for a new departure at the summer- exhibition of the Academy, if architects will respond to Mr. Shaw’s challenge and send in workmanlike drawings ; and that if architects know how to deal with Fortune when she is off guard, they have their Old Masters’ exhibition secured. If these two changes should spring from the friendly interchange of views here the dis¬ cussion will not have been in vain.

t e s.

what is the desirable system for England. Things are in a highly fluid state at present between the old prentice-system and the va¬ rious tentatives at regular teaching ; and a great deal will depend on the lead given to thought in the next year or two before it stiffens into organisation.

We hope in a later number to give some illus¬ tration of the remarkable discoveries at Knossos in Crete, due to the energy of Mr. Arthur Evans. In the meantime we may advise all architects to visit the display of photographs, drawings, and casts illustrative of these discoveries to be seen at Burlington House, in an exhibition that ranges from Daedalus to Mr. John Brett.

Mediaeval Southampton.

Of the endless stream of travellers who pass through Southampton on their way to distant lands, probably not one in a thousand ever thinks of the town as anything more than an important modern seaport whose prominence is practically coincident with the South African War. But Southampton has seen other periods of prosperity besides the present, and can still exhibit to the sightseer relics of her greatness which date back at least to the time of William the Conqueror. It is not certain whether the spot was fortified in Saxon times; but if it was, the defences were evidently unavailing, for the Danes landed here in 873 and plundered the inhabitants. They landed again in 980, and again a few years later, which incidentally proves that the town was of some importance to have commanded such atten¬ tion from enemies. Later on Southampton had to protect herself almost constantly against the French, and in 1338 suffered terrible disaster at their hands when they landed from fifty galleys and sacked the whole town, being only driven off with the assistance of the country round after the damage had been done. But it was not only as a town which enemies might destroy at their leisure that Southampton excelled, though singularly enough nearly all its historical associations are connected with war, either aggressive or defensive. It was here that Edward III. and the Black Prince embarked with their army for the cam¬ paign which ended at Crecy, and, at a later date, Henry V. mustered his army here and sailed away to fight at Agincourt, while the town supplied its quota to assist in checking the Spanish Armada.

There have been two periods of activity in building the walls, the first in Norman days fol¬ lowing the incursions of the Danes, and the second in the fourteenth century as a reply to the sack of the town by the French ; but while there are many portions which are entirely Decorated in style, there is little of the Norman work re¬ maining which has not been altered at the later period. The town, that is to say the old town which was enclosed within the walls — for what is now Southampton Docks was, until 1838, merely two hundred acres of slime and mud — stands at the southern end of a narrow spit of land abutting upon Southampton Water, and bounded on the east and west by the rivers Itchen and Test, so that it was eminently adapted to become a strong fortress. The base of the walls on the west and south was washed by the tide, and a broad ditch protected the other two sides. This ditch has long since disappeared, but its name survives, for

the narrow alley now standing upon its site is still familiarly called “The Ditches.”

The circuit of the walls comprised seven gates, five chief towers, and nineteen or twenty smaller ones, the number of the latter being differently give 1 by various authorities, the discrepancy probably arising through a misconception as to what was a tower and what was merely a large fiat buttress. In addition to these defences, the western curtain was strengthened and dominated by the Castle, which stood on a high artificial mound, but has entirely disappeared, except the bailey wall which ran inward in a double curve from the town wall and joined it again further south near the vanished Bridlegate. The Castle consisted of a keep standing in the midst of a small enclosure to which there were two gates, the chief of which, Castle Gate, stood in what is still called Castle Lane, where a fragment of the masonry still juts out into the roadway marking the exact site. The Castle Postern has entirely disappeared. Castle Watergate may be dismissed for the present, as it is included in the circuit of the walls. History does not tell us much about the Castle itself, but from the records of the various Constables we gather incidentally that it was not an unmixed blessing to live in a walled seaport town; for in 1206, Robert de Cantaloupe was in¬ structed to seize ships for the King, and owners who hesitated in parting with their vessels were to be treated as enemies ; and in 1339, Sir Richard Talbot was commanded to see that the town defences were kept up at the expense of the inhabitants (this was the year after the great sack by the French). By 1376 the burgesses felt

NORTH BAILEY WALL.

Mediceval Southampton

53

SOUTHAMPTON: THE WALLED TOWN.

54

Mediaeval Southampton .

NORTH-WEST ANGLE WITH ARUNDEL AND CATCHCOLD TOWERS.

themselves so burdened with the incessant mu¬ rages that they petitioned the King to accept the town at their hands and relieve them of the expense of keeping the walls in repair. The Castle was early allowed to fall into decay, and by 1550 it had become customary to shoot rubbish on the Castle Green. In 1618, what remained was granted away to the Gollop family, who speedily cleared the site by permitting the stone to be removed for the repair of the walls.

The most convenient point for commencing a survey of the walls is the north-west angle, where the northern ditch emptied into Southampton Water. Along the western side of the town, where the walls still stand nearly 30 ft. high as far as the south bailey of the Castle, there are two towers which claim notice. The first is Arundel Tower, the summit of which stands about 60 ft. high above the former water level, or about 55 ft. above the Western Shore Road, which was made within the last fifty years and skirts the whole of this side. The tower is now a mere shell of Decorated masonry, with indications of the rampart walk and a flight of steps leading from the north town wall to the summit. The second tower, 130 ft. away, is called “ Wind Whistle,” or “ Catchcold ” Tower, and is seem¬ ingly of Perpendicular date, as it is evident from the masonry on either side that it is an insertion in the Decorated curtain. Further south the

wall breaks forward to an obtuse angle which is dominated by a salient carried out to a diagonal buttress on flat arches and also Decorated in structure. This fourteenth century masonry ceases a few feet further to the south at the spot where the north bailey of the castle swept round to the town wall and terminated in a broad buttress built upon the sea-front of the wall to take the thrust. Here the stonework changes

INTERIOR OK ARUNDEL TOWER.

Mediceval Southampton.

CASTLE WATERGATE.

from large and small stones used indiscriminately to small ones of uniform size and roughly squared, and as it is exactly similar to the Norman work in King John’s Palace it may, without fear of contradiction, be attributed to the same period. This continues to the south bailey, a distance of about 120 yards in an unbroken line, save for seven buttresses towards the end, which seem to have been added at various times as the tide weakened the foot of the wall and rendered repairs necessary. Between the fourth and fifth of these stands the Castle Water Gate, and to the left of this is a vaulted chamber 55 ft. 3 in. by 19 ft. 6 in. by 25 ft. high. It is roofed with a barrel vault upon strong transverse arches. There is no access to it from above — it may have been entered from the Water Gate — and the floor level is above the present roadway and consequently 6 ft. above the water-line. It has one narrow- pointed window and a small doorway opening to the sea. The Water Gate is a mere fragment of its former self and has three steps remaining of a flight which led to the small Castle Quay, a landing stage to which the door of the vaulted chamber probably also gave access. From this gate to the south bailey there seem to have been other vaulted chambers, as there are indications of loops and windows in two storeys.

South of the bailey the wall crossed the castle moat — if there was one as Davies’ “ History of Southampton ” suggests, but its use is not evident —and projected south-west in a large bastion which protected this moat, Biddlesgate and the West Quay, though not a vestige of these features remains. Bridlegate or Biddlesgate seems to have been merely an arch in the wall protected by machicolations, but was of great importance

5 5

as it formed one of the chief approaches to the then shipping centre.

At this point the West Quay, now incorporated in the Western Shore Road, commenced and ex¬ tended about 230 yards as far as Bugle Tower. Half the Kings of England landed and embarked here during their periodical excursions into the region of their real or imaginary French posses¬ sions, and among other travellers a large number of the Pilgrim Fathers sailed from this once nar¬ row strip of gravel to help in founding the mighty nations which have arisen in North America.

Resuming the circuit from Biddlesgate there are two other gates which led to the Quay, Blue Anchor Postern and Westgate, both of which are still in existence. Here also begins the Decorated arcading with which the Norman walls were strengthened, together with three towers which were pulled down in 1775. The walling is 30 ft. high, the Norman portion 4 ft. thick, and the Decorated addition 3 ft. thick, making a total thickness of 7 ft. The supporting piers of the arches are built into the older work as high as the springing, but above that the outer wall is 16 in. thick, and stands 20 in. clear of the Norman wall behind, forming a continuous machicolation hidden in the thickness of the wall. The Arcade has been built without regard to the openings in the rearwork, and would almost seem to have been contrived to block the windows. This is particularly the case with the building called King John’s Palace, which occupies the two bays south of Blue Anchor Postern. The town docu¬ ments make frequent mention of the “ King’s Houses,” and this edifice and another which stood on the north side of the Postern — Blue Anchor

THE ARCADING, WITH KING JOHN’S PALACE AND THE BLUE ANCHOR POSTERN.

56

Mi edi ceva l Southampton .

WESTGATE FROM THE QUAY.

Lane being merely an alley between them, and the Postern a plain pointed arch with a portcullis — are commonly held to be the houses referred to, but the Rev. S. Davies, to whose “ History of Southampton ” the present writer is indebted for much of his information, combats the idea, say¬ ing that their small size is against the suggestion, and that the Castle was not a hundred yards away, where the King would certainly secure far better accommodation. Be this as it may, King John’s Palace shares with the Jews’ house at Lincoln the distinction of being the chief relic of Norman domestic work in England. It is simple in the extreme, and measures about 40 ft. square. Internally it had two floors, the upper being chief, with a fine shafted fireplace on the north wall and the chimney carried up in an external projection upon four plain corbels. There is also on this floor an intramural passage, which leads from the east wall along the south till it ends in the town wall upon the west. The house had a doorway to the beach, and therefore does not seem to have been intended seriously as part of the defences, but in the fourteenth century the arch was blocked up and only an oillet left. The windows are all two-light round-arched, with simple mouldings and a shaft with a cushion capital between the openings.

There are no more features of interest except a

salient — in the middle of which the masonry changes from Norman to Decorated — similar to the one already described, between this point and the Westgate. This Westgate is a structure of Decorated date, and one of the most picturesque spots in Southampton. It is three storeys in height, and was formerly square topped with two embrasures on each side for artillery, but the

THE OLD GUARD ROOM.

Medueval Southampton.

57

THE WESTGATE.

embrasures are converted into windows now, and a tile roof adds just the requisite amount of colour to render it a perfect “bit” for artists. It was defended by portcullises worked from above, and, in addition, there are rows of holes in the vaulted archway for the purpose of pouring boiling water or lead on an enemy. Beside the gate is a flight of steps leading to the “ alure,” and separating the gate from the old Guard Room, also a Deco¬ rated structure, built of wood on a stone base, and erected against the town wall, but still pre¬ serving the alure, although the part covered by the Guard Room is incorporated in the building. The town guard mustered here in times of danger, received their orders, and marched out along the ramparts to their allotted posts. South of the Westgate the work is Decorated, clearly marked in most places, but at intervals degenerating into a slovenly rubble as if built in a hurry, possibly

when the French, in 1404, were ravaging the Isle of Wight and were expected at Southampton. Behind a portion of this wall are the remains of another vaulted chamber. There are the remains, too, of an arcade similar to the one described, but consisting of six arches, of which only two are complete. The sixth of these probably abutted against Bugle Tower, which has disappeared, but is known to have stood somewhere near this spot. From here onwards as far as God’s House Tower, at the south-east of the town, there is little enough to show that fortifications ever existed along this front, for in addition to Bugle Tower, St. Barbara’s and Woolbridge Towers have disappeared, as well as the town Watergate and nearly the whole cur¬ tain wall. The West Quay ceased at Bugle Tower, and from here to the Watergate Quay the tide washed the foot of the walls, leaving at low water a narrow strip of shingle called the “ Gravel.”

M ed iceva l Sou tJi a mp ton .

THE SPANISH PRISON.

Between Bugle and Corner Towers the walls re¬ main to a height of about io ft., and appear to have been patched up incessantly, and now have little interest. The foundations of the Corner Tower are still visible. The southern defences were destroyed by Act of Parliament, 1803-4, 1° allow of harbour improvements. Behind these vanished works were, and still remain, the gra¬ naries and stores, chief among which is the Wool- house, a rectangular structure of fourteenth-cen¬ tury date, with quaint semi-cylindrical buttresses. It is more familiarly known as the “ Spanish Prison,” and is thus a link with the Peninsular War. The foundations of the other stores have been used as a superstructure for their modern successors, but the Decorated masonry and but¬ tresses may be still seen 20 ft. high in places. In this same line behind the wall is also the frag¬ mentary portion of a building which was evidently another Norman house but of considerable extent, and it has in consequence been called “ Canute’s Palace,” for no other reason apparently beyond its size. It was over 100 ft. long by 16 ft. wide, two storeys in height, and consisted of two long galleries superimposed. Probably it was divided into apartments by wooden screens. It has no features of interest, as the original openings are greatly disguised, and even the alterations which were made in the Decorated style have almost entirely gone. Old drawings of this portion of the walls show a high semi-circular tower of three

storeys with a sloping base, called Canute’s Tower, which, as no existing plan gives this name to any portion of the defences, is probably to be identified with Woolbridge Tower. The drawings show a breach close beside the tower, and as a breach is known to have been made near the Watergate about 1780 this surmise is probably correct.

The Watergate, or Flood Gate as it was occa¬ sionally called, was an erection dating back to Richard II., and afforded the only approach to the Town Quay: and this is the chief cause of its destruction and the disappearance of the adjoining curtain. Something still remains of the curtain in a house west of the gate, where there are four machicolations in cement, and the house next to where the gate stood still follows the curve of the old wall, but is also masked in cement. An un¬ dated engraving of this portion, apparently about a hundred years old, shows these same features in stone, so that it is probable that the removal of the stucco would reveal the original town wall. The arch of the Watergate soon proved utterly inadequate for the traffic, and a postern was then cut on the western side, which was also insufficient. Then a breach was made east of the gate, and after that anyone who desired to tranship goods to his premises merely made a breach of his own at the most convenient point. The eastern breach was made too close to the gate and shook the abutment, so that a part of the Watergate col¬ lapsed in 1800, and the whole was taken down

Mediczval Southampton

59

THE WATERGATE. FROM AN OLD PRINT.

GOD’S HOUSE TOWER.

6o

M edicBva l Southampton .

BACK OF THE WALLS.

four years later. The Watch Tower, which was similar to Woolbridge Tower, has disappeared, but its foundations exist in the base of a bay window of a public-house, and thus render it possible still to trace the walls across the south of the town.

God’s House Tower, so called from its proximity to God’s House or the Hospital of St. Julian — now the French Church — is of two periods, the left-hand portion in the illustration dating back to the thirteenth century and the rest being a century later. Both portions, except the tower proper, seem to have been carried up higher, and probably were adorned with battlements. The

addition of the later portion has thrown the gate¬ way into a corner as it were, but this was done as a protection to the sluices of the ditch and seems to have been a necessary precaution owing to the frequent French attacks. In the fifteenth century this building was used as a store, and from 1707 till 1855 was the town gaol.

Turning northwards from this point, the wall continued in a long, sinuous line for a distance of nearly a quarter of a mile to Polymond Tower, at the north-east angle, with only one gateway — Eastgate — and six or seven semicircular turrets, all of which have practically disappeared, not apparently by deliberate licensed-by-Act-of-Parlia- ment vandalism, as was the case on the south side, but by the more insidious process of individual destructiveness. The southernmost of the semi¬ circular towers is still standing, together with a few fragments of wall about breast-high and of Decorated masonry, with tumbledown cottages built into and up against them. These are all the actual remains, but the names of vanished de¬ fences still survive, and incontrovertibly fix the position of ditches and walls. Thus what was once the passage-way which gave access to the ramparts in times of stress is still called “ Back- of-the-Walls,” and, incidentally, it is still quite as noisome as it could ever have been, even in the “good old days.’’ Cats, children, and dustbins abound in this locality, and one of the latter occupies the interior of the rectangular projection, shown on plan as coming next to the still remain¬ ing tower. Outside this wall was a moat, stated frequently to have been a double ditch, though old drawings and engravings only show a single one

EASTGATE, FROM AN ENGRAVING BY HOOPER, MADE IN 1 784.

Medieval Southampton.

6 1

THE POLYMOND TOWER.

about 30 ft. wide. This spot has seen many changes since the ditch was first dug, for subse¬ quently, about a hundred years ago, a canal was projected and actually excavated, though never opened. This has now been filled up and built over, leaving only a narrow alley (on the exact site of the counterscarp of the old moat) called officially “ Canal Walk,” but, as already men¬ tioned, popularly known as “ The Ditches,” the two names taken together forming a very complete epitome of its history. Bridge Street is a com¬ paratively modern road, and was not made until the defences became useless.

The Eastgate, now destroyed, consisted of a semi-octagon projecting between two round towers and wholly Decorated in style. It was well sup¬ plied with oillets, and seems to have been very strong with a battlemented summit arranged for artillery, which was thus able to sweep the whole ditch with its fire. It had a drawbridge until 1670, when it was removed, and a bridge built in its place of stone taken from the Castle. There appears to have been a chapel over the gate. This structure was entirely destroyed in 1775, probably so as not to obstruct the line of the canal.

The next fragment in existence is St. Denys or Polymond Tower, a building little known even to natives of the town, as it lies now hidden from

sight at the end of a brewer’s yard and embosomed in trees and creepers. Its first name is probably connected with St. Denys Priory, the scanty remains of which lie about two miles up the River Itchen. The name of Polymond is attributable to John Polymond, who was nine times mayor of Southampton between 1365 and 1392, dates which are quite in agreement with the character of the tower.

The north wall of the town, 200 yards in extent, is the shortest of them all, with three semicircular towers, of which a fair amount remains still to be seen, and one gate, Bargate, at once the joy and sorrow of Southampton. Its gateway is so narrow that it effectually blocks all traffic year in and year out, and year in and year out schemes are drafted by which either the gate is removed or the roadway engineered round the side, as has been done at Warwick. To remove it would be little less than a deliberate sin, for it is one of the most picturesque of mediaeval gateways in the kingdom. It consists mainly of three portions — the wide Norman arch in the centre, which was the original gateway, and flush with the line of the curtain ; two semicircular towers of Early Decorated type, projecting into the ditch ; and a semioctagon (Richard II.) occupying the space between them and projecting still further outwards. It once

VOL. xiu. — F.

62

Mediczval Southampton.

THE BARGATE.

had its drawbridge and portcullises, but these disappeared when this portion of the moat was filled up, about the beginning or middle of the sixteenth century. It has been altered many times, for Queen Elizabeth blocked up the centre and cross oillet with a coat-of-arms, and at one period of its history a vandalistic corporation placed sash windows in the position of the side oillets. The two posterns were cut about the year 1770. The two lions cast in lead once guarded the bridge giving approach to the gate¬ way. The town side of Bargate is a restora¬ tion, and has a modern appearance, but the sun-dial is original. In a bellcote to the left is a watch-bell dated 1605, the only remaining one of several about the walls which sounded the time of day, and also on occasion the alarm. York Gate, to the east of Bargate, is a modern insertion. There is nothing to be seen of the walls from Bargate to Arundel Tower, and this

portion seems to have been masked by old timber buildings for at least two centuries.

Apart from the old walls, Southampton has not much of architectural interest. There are many churches, it is true, and at least three of them are of ancient foundation, but these have un¬ fortunately been mutilated or re-built. St. Mary’s, the mother church, which, for some reason un¬ known to the writer, lies half a mile outside the walls, was founded by Matilda, but pulled down in 1550 because the spire formed an inconveniently good landmark for French invaders. It now forms the core under the road metalling of Bar- gate Street and East Street. Another and smaller church was built a few years later, a third in 1711 (enlarged in 1833), and the present one com¬ menced in 1878 from designs by Street. It is rather a curious coincidence that the spire of the present St. Mary’s is not yet built, though it is on account of funds, and not of French invaders.

Mediceval Southampton.

63

Holy Rood Church was originally built in the middle of High Street (corner of Bridge Street), and in 1320 was removed to a less prominent posi¬ tion on the other side of the pavement. It was re¬ built fifty years ago, all except the tower, which, however, is quite as uninteresting as if it had suf¬ fered along with the rest of the edifice. It con¬ tains a very good brass lectern of the fourteenth century, representing an eagle on a globe, which in turn is supported on a tower standing on three lions. Even St. Michael’s Church is but the shadow of its former self, for the whole interior arrangement has been ruthlessly altered. Origi¬ nally it was Norman — and very early Norman, too, as is attested by the plain and massive tower crossing ; but the nave arcade has given way to iron and stucco columns of a not very great many years ago. The external walls are original Nor¬ man masonry for the most part, with Early English windows inserted, and Perpendicular tracery again inserted in the earlier arches. There is also a very good sixteenth century monument to Sir R. Lyster in the north aisle, but space will not admit of an illustration ; some old chained books and a very good carved Jacobean chest and cupboard in the vestry dated 1646. But the gem of St. Michael’s is the font. This consists of a square block of black marble on a cylindrical base sculptured with rude carvings, and credited with being of fabulous antiquity. It seems pro¬ bable that, together with the fonts at Winchester

Cathedral, East Meon, and a fourth in the north of England, the one at St. Michael’s dates from about 1180, and is the work of Flemish artists, the shallowness of the carving being due not

1

ST. MICHAEL’S CHURCH.

64

M ec ii ceva l South a mp to n .

FONT, ST. MICHAEL’S CHURCH.

so much to inability on the part of the worker as to the hardness of the material. The whole font is untouched except for the small angle shafts of the base, which replace the original ones.

Of monastic and semi-ecclesiastical institutions Southampton has had a large share ; but for the

most part these buildings are no more, and even the actual location of some of them is in dispute. But those of which a vestige remains a few words may be added. St. Denys Priory (Augus- tines) was founded in 1124, and does not seem to have been famous for the good behaviour of its monks, for the records preserve a set of rules drawn up on account of the prevailing disso¬ luteness, which would hardly be considered necessary in the most depraved of modern communities. It was duly suppressed under Henry VIII., and the property passed through various hands and suffered various acts of van¬ dalism until, in the beginning of last century, all that remained was pulled down, except a fragment of Early English walling pierced with a single lancet window and the relics of a doorway, which stands isolated and forgotten in a field by the river. A convent of Friars Minor (Franciscans) also existed within the walls, but the only trace of the fraternity now remaining is a fragment of a conduit head a mile from the old town dating back to about 1300.

The Hospital of St. Julian, or God’s House, which gave its name to the south-east tower on the walls, has rather more to show of its former extent; but, although it was built in 1195, the

TUDOR HOUSE.

Forms of the

portions which remain — now the French Church and a gateway leading thereto under a tower — show a mixture of transitional Norman and Per¬ pendicular details, and are of no particular in¬ terest.

One house of all that must have enriched such a thriving city alone stands to-day as evidence of former greatness— Tudor House, in St. Michael’s

Tuscan Arch. 65

Square, a very fine and rich example of half- timbered construction. Nothing is known con¬ cerning it, but as Henry VIII. was a frequent visitor to the town, popular tradition has invented a legend that Anne Boleyn resided there, and it has a considerable romantic interest for those whc can swallow myths which are not in any way sup¬ ported by documentary evidence.

Robert W. Carden.

Forms of the Tuscan Arch.

In the domestic and civic architecture of Italy during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, we find arches of which our illustrations should enable the reader to typify for himself the most frequent and characteristic forms. They are con¬ structed of massive masonry. The intrados is gene¬ rally semicircular, though it becomes slightly pointed in some of the later examples. The extrados varies extremely, but its varieties maybe reduced to one or other of three dominant types. In the first of these it is a portion of a circle struck from a higher centre than that of the intrados, so that a greater or less “ horseshoeing ” is perceptible at the base of the arch.* In the second the extrados is composite and rises above the intrados in the graceful form of a Gothic arch. In the third this effect of height is greatly increased by a device borrowed from the first type, and the extrados becomes what would be called in Italian an arco composto sorpassato, where the forms of the Gothic and horseshoe arches are seen in combination. f We may be allowed to regret that this arch has not received more attention in modern architec¬ tural practice : it is undoubtedly a form capable of very noble use and development.

Taking the second of these types as the most frequent, normal, and characteristic, we are now concerned to note that closer examination shows it for something much more subtle and remark¬ able than it would seem at first sight. Here is no mere Gothic form given to the extrados of what is substantially and structurally a round- headed arch. The voussoirs which compose it are, at least in many cases, so cut that the twin forms of extrados and intrados in this doubly composite arch are the just and beautiful result of its inward structure. The principle of the semi¬ circular intrados makes itself felt in the upper voussoirs whose joints lie along the radii of that

* An example given may be seen in the village of Monsummano Alto, Tuscany, which has hardly been inhabited since the plague of 1348.

f The illustration of this form is taken from an ancient arch at No. i, Por Santa Maria, Florence. It is a rare example of double-pointing in early times.

curve. But the lower voussoirs on each side answer to the extrados, as their joints radiate from two centres which lie near the opposite corners of the base. Thus this interesting arch is partially Gothic, not only by the form given to its extrados, but in the principle of its construc¬ tion, and may be held for a composite form of a very deep and remarkable kind. As to its dis¬ tribution that is wide enough. A stroll along the narrower and more ancient streets of almost any Tuscan town will bring the student face to face with unnumbered examples, and the same may be said of Umbria, where Perugia and Assisi are peculiarly rich in material for these studies. A remarkable, if not unique, variant may be ciUd from the Bigallo at Florence. Here the small door has in its head an arch whose extrados and intrados are both pointed, while, however, the joints of the voussoirs radiate from a single normal centre. This example then is essentially Romanesque, though its outward form has become completely Gothic. Of uncertain date,0 it should be particularly noted as furnish¬ ing the final link in the chain of these successive and varied forms of arch construction.

The best point of departure for the study of such arches will be found in certain church doors of Lucca and its neighbourhood. To mention no others, the fa5ades of San Frediano and Sta Maria Forisportam in that city, and a remarkable door or window raised many feet from the ground in the north face of the campanile at Diecimo (valley of the Serchiojf show plainly the primi¬ tive way of building by which in early times their architects sought to gain a certain desired effect

* This door is plainly part of an older building — perhaps of the famous Guardamorto — which has been saved and incorpo¬ rated with the Bigallo.

f Similar door or window arches may be seen in the town of Lucca itself by those who have not time to travel further afield They will be found in the south face of the Campanile of San Frediano; the east face of the Campanile of the Duomo, and a civil example, though but ill-preserved, may be traced on the north face of an ancient tower at the corner of the Piazza del Salvatore and the Via Calderia.

66

Forms of the Tuscan Arch.

TYPICAL TUSCAN ARCH— POR S. MARIA, FLORENCE.

of height in such constructions. The door-jambs were treated as flat pilasters with projecting and sometimes richly floriated capitals. Over these was laid a deep and massive lintel, and it is this which, with its elaborate and deeply-cut foliage or figure subjects, forms such a strongly-marked feature in the ancient architecture of Lucca. Over this again the pilasters were repeated in a stunted form and with capitals less boldly marked, and from these, at last, sprang the simple round- headed arch which it had been the architect’s purpose in all this storied underbuilding to carry as high as possible above the headway of the door. Here then we have a reason for the depth given to the great lintel stone, and for the pre¬ sence of the smaller pair of pilasters which rested on it, while the remarkable sculpture generally found on the lintel and the mouldings, if no more, which served as capitals to the final pilasters was no doubt designed to reduce, if not remove, the somewhat clumsy effect of what was in fact a double stilting of the arch.

The Diecimo door* shows us the same arrange-

* This cannot easily be photographed, hence we have substi¬ tuted for it in the illustrations a door of the same type which is found in the west face of the Torre delle Ore, Lucca, and will serve the purpose of this study equally well.

ment of parts, but in the simplest form, and stripped of all adventitious ornament, and it is particularly useful as helping us to see clearly the connection of the Lucchese door-heads with the composite arches of Tuscany. Imagine that the doorway of S. Maria Forisportam has been chiselled to the absolute level of the wall-face, and you have a result exactly like what may be seen at Diecimo. In the latter example the jambs have lost their capitals, except at the angles of the doorway, where the simple brackets which still remain to support the lintel may certainly be held for a survival of them at the two precise points to which the reducing process we have supposed could not reach. Now such brackets under the lintel are a well-known feature in the older Tuscan doors — Florence has many examples of this arrangement — and it is therefore interest¬ ing to find at Lucca the fuller form of which they are the incomplete survival.

Nor is this all that may be learned at Diecimo. The severe plainness of construction seen here is carried out with consistence even in the door-head, where the simple Romanesque arch has neither carving about its extrados nor mouldings to mark where it springs. Thus nothing is left to mask the real nature of its building, and both the lintel

Forms of the Tics can Arch.

67

DOOR OF BIGALLO — FLORENCE. NORTH DOOR— S. M. FORISPORTAM, LUCCA.

68

Forms of the

and what it immediately supports are seen for what they truly are : a stilting in two stages, meant to give height to the round-headed arch above.

Now just as the brackets of this door have helped us to understand those commonly found in such situations throughout Tuscany, so does the upper part of the same example throw light on what we are chiefly concerned with here : the varied forms of arch used in the Tuscan door- heads. Judged and interpreted by what is found at Diecimo, these horseshoe and Gothic forms, in all their varied combinations with the Romanesque arch and with each other, are nothing but attempts successively made to gain, with a new grace un¬ known to the older style, the same effect of height and proportion once sought in the studied stilting of a simple round-headed arch. That the new expedients were successful is seen in the fact that the builders who employed them were aide almost at once to dispense with the help of that lavish ornament which their predecessors had so freely used to mask or relieve the clumsiness of the plan on which they worked.

Such a view of the matter may easily be con¬ firmed by greater and more striking instances of what is essentially the same practice. At Pisa, for example, the Cathedral has Romanesque arches in the central nave, but in the aisles both arches and vaulting become pointed, and for a very obvious reason. The aisles are double, and the columns which divide them being a good deal shorter than those of the nave, it became a difficult matter to contrive arches and vaulting in the aisles which should combine well with those built to support the clerestory. Now the problem was solved not by stilting, but by introducing Gothic arches in the aisle arcades, and so carrying these up to a point where vaulting common to both might easily connect them with the round arches of the nave.*

Or take the case of the horseshoe arch. When at Lucca, in the opening years of the thirteenth century, a new porch was ordered at San Martino, the architect found his limits strictly defined by the projection of the Campanile on the south and the line of the Church wall on the north, while yet the arches he was to build must be made to fall opposite the three doors in the fagade. The arch next the Campanile had perforce to be made smaller than the other two, and the architect, wishing in spite of this difficulty to gain some¬ thing like a just proportion, or rather to mask as far as possible the want of it, has given this smaller arch more than something of a horseshoe

* Another and probably earlier example of the pointed arch, apparently used from mere delight in its form, may be found in San Paolo a Ripa d'Arno. It was evidently well known to the early Pisan builders.

Tuscan Arch.

shape as the most graceful form of stilting which he knew or could contrive.*

A very singular example of the horseshoe arch is to be seen at Florence, which not only confirms the conclusion we have already reached, but shows considerable connection with the Lucchese stiltings already noticed. The lower part of the fagade of San Stefano of Florence has fortunately been left in its primitive state : it is commonly held for work of the twelfth century. The main door is set in a flat