Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 5.djvu/473

THE ABBEY CHURCH OF TEWKESBURY. 349 thin wooden spire crowns the ridge of the roof, as at Dijon. Now, in Eng- land, few cathedi-als or large conventual churches are without a central tower of sufficient importance to form the characteristic feature of the build- ing ; Westminster abbey, which is without it, has a decidedly foreign ap- pearance in many res2:)ects. The central towers of Gloucester, York, Can- terbury, Lincoln, and the spires of Salisbury and Chichester, are not equalled by any towers occupying the same position in continental churches. In Normandy the central tower is not unfrequent, but is often out-topped by western towers, as in the abbey of St. Stephen, at Caen. " It is not difficult to arrive at the reason of this distinction. The plan of the larger continental churches generally comprised two aisles on each side of the nave, and thus, almost of necessity, required either a front which should form a screen, or a western transept, or two enormous towers. But in England there is seldom more tlian one aisle on each side, and in this case a simple front, shewing the composition without disguise, as at Winchester, Gloucester, and Worcester, forms a beautiful pyraraidical out- line ; or if towers be added at the end of the aisles, these need not be of a massiveness exceeding or equalling that in the centre. In continental spe- cimens also, the great height of the nave, and the slenderness of the piers, might render a massive central tower inconvenient. " The grouping of towers evidently occupied much attention at and about the time when the Norman architectui'e prevailed ; and I am not clear that we shall find any arrangement of a later date which may not also be found in buildings of that period ; although some modes of grouping that belonged to it appear to have dropped during the succeeding eras of Gothic architec- ture." pp. 12, 13. " Perhaps no subordinate western towers could have grouped better with the central tower of Tewkesbury, nor have formed a more harmonious finish to its magnificent front, than do the elegant turrets which flank the great arch. They are unique in their design, and in their general proportion not inferior to the most elaborate pinnacles of the advanced Gothic. But though of evidently Norman date, it may be doubted whether they are a part of the original design. In the clerestory wall, above the aisle vaulting, about seventeen feet from the western wall of the building, is a rough mass of masonry, indicating that a wall about five feet in 'thickness had been at least begun across the aisle. Now this would be the proper position, and the probable thickness of the eastern wall to one of two western towers, and gives a fair reason for supposing that such were intended. Perhaps a change of architect may have involved a change of design* no uncommon circumstance." p. 18. Mr. Petit has omitted to point out, although he must have observed, that the small spire and pinnacles by which these turrets are surmounted, are of considerably later date, than the turrets themselves, and no part of their original design ;] they were probably terminated by plain pyramids. '* The mouldings are few and simple, and exhibit none of the enrichments peculiar to the style, which are often found in greater abundance in the ^'OL. V, Z Z