قراءة كتاب The Principles of Gothic Ecclesiastical Architecture, Elucidated by Question and Answer, 4th ed.
تنويه: تعرض هنا نبذة من اول ١٠ صفحات فقط من الكتاب الالكتروني، لقراءة الكتاب كاملا اضغط على الزر “اشتر الآن"
![The Principles of Gothic Ecclesiastical Architecture, Elucidated by Question and Answer, 4th ed. The Principles of Gothic Ecclesiastical Architecture, Elucidated by Question and Answer, 4th ed.](https://files.ektab.com/php54/s3fs-public/styles/linked-image/public/book_cover/gutenberg/defaultCover_2.jpg?itok=OM5Yrm-2)
The Principles of Gothic Ecclesiastical Architecture, Elucidated by Question and Answer, 4th ed.
combination of geometrical and flowing tracery observable in the style immediately preceding.
The frequent occurrence of panelled compartments, and the partial change of form in the arches, especially of doorways and windows, which in the latter part of the fifteenth century were often obtusely pointed and mathematically described from four centres, instead of two, as in the more simple pointed arch, and which from the period when this arch began to be prevalent was called the Tudor arch, together with a great profusion of minute ornament, mostly of a description not before in use, are the chief characteristics of the style of the fifteenth century, which by some of the earlier writers was designated as the Florid; though it has since received the more general appellation of the Perpendicular.
This style prevailed till the Reformation, at which period no country could vie with our own in the number of religious edifices, which had been erected in all the varieties of style that had prevailed for many preceding ages. Next to the magnificent cathedrals, the venerable monasteries and collegiate establishments, which had been founded and sumptuously endowed in every part of the kingdom, might most justly claim the preeminence; and many of the churches belonging to them were deservedly held in admiration for their grandeur and architectural elegance of design.
But the suppression of the monasteries tended in no slight degree to hasten the decline and fall of our ancient church architecture, to which other causes, such as the revival of the classic orders in Italy, also contributed. The churches belonging to the conventual foundations, which had been built at different periods by the monks or their benefactors, and the charges of erecting and decorating which from time to time in the most costly manner, had been defrayed out of the monastic revenues, and from private donations, being seized by the crown, were reduced to a state of ruin, and the sites on which they stood granted to dependants of the court. The former reverential feeling on these matters had greatly changed; and as the retention of some few of the ministerial habits, the square cap, the cope, the surplice, and hood, which were deemed expedient for the decent ministration of public worship, gave great offence to many, and was one of the most apparent causes which led to that schism amongst the Reformers, on points of discipline, which afterwards ended in the subversion, for a time, of the rites and ordinances of the Church of England, any attempt towards beautifying and adorning (other than with carved pulpits and communion-tables or altars) the places of divine worship, which were now stripped of many of their former ornamental accessories, would have been regarded and inveighed against as a popish and superstitious innovation; and a charge of this kind was at a later period preferred against Archbishop Laud. Parochial churches were, therefore, now repaired when fallen into a state of dilapidation, in a plain and inelegant mode, in complete variance with the richness and display observable in the style just preceding this event.
Details, originating from the designs of classic architecture, which had been partially revived in Italy, began early in the sixteenth century to make their appearance in this country, though as yet, except on tombs and in wood-work, we observe few of those peculiar features introduced as accessories in church architecture.
Hence many of our country churches, which were repaired or partly rebuilt in the century succeeding the Reformation, exhibit the marks of the style justly denominated Debased, to distinguish it from the former purer styles. Depressed and nearly flat arched doorways, with shallow mouldings, square-headed windows with perpendicular mullions and obtuse-pointed or round-headed lights, without foliations, together with a general clumsiness of construction, as compared with more ancient edifices, form the predominating features in ecclesiastical buildings of this kind: and in the reign of Charles the First an indiscriminate mixture of Debased Gothic and Roman architecture prevailing, we lose sight of every true feature of our ancient ecclesiastical styles, which were superseded by that which sprang more immediately from the Antique, the Roman, or Italian mode.
3-* Tempore, ut scimus, summo Tiberii Cæsaris, &c.—Gildas.
4-* Ruebant ædificia publica simul et privata, passim Sacerdotes inter altaria trucibantur.—Bede, Eccl. Hist. lib. i. c. xv.
CHAPTER I.
DEFINITION OF GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE; ITS ORIGIN, AND THE DIVISION OF IT INTO STYLES.
Q. What is meant by the term “Gothic Architecture”?
A. Without entering into the derivation of the word “Gothic,” it may suffice to state that it is an expression sometimes used to denote in one general term, and distinguish from the Antique, those peculiar modes or styles in which most of our ecclesiastical and many of our domestic edifices of the middle ages have been built. In a more confined sense, it comprehends those styles only in which the pointed arch predominates, and it is then often used to distinguish such from the more ancient Anglo-Saxon and Norman styles.
Q. To what can the origin of this kind of architecture be traced?
A. To the classic orders in that state of degeneracy into which they had fallen in the age of Constantine, and afterwards; and as the Romans, on their voluntary abandonment of Britain in the fifth century, left many of their temples and public edifices remaining, together with some Christian churches, it was in rude imitation of the Roman structures of the fourth century that the most ancient of our Anglo-Saxon churches were constructed. This is apparent from an examination and comparison of such with the vestiges of Roman buildings we have existing.
Q. Into how many different styles may English ecclesiastical architecture be divided?
A. No specific regulation has been adopted, with regard to the denomination or division of the several styles, in which all the writers on the subject agree: but they may be divided into seven, which, together with the periods when they flourished, may be generally defined as follows:
The