Development and Character of Gothic Architecture

by Charles Herbert Moore

——————————

 

DEVELOPMENT & CHARACTER

OF

GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE

 

 

Macmillan header ornament

 

 

 

DEVELOPMENT & CHARACTER

OF

GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE

 

BY

CHARLES HERBERT MOORE

 

WITH ILLUSTRATIONS

 

London
MACMILLAN AND CO.
AND NEW YORK
1890

 

 

COPYRIGHT

1890

By CHARLES HERBERT MOORE

 

 

PREFACE

In the following attempt to set forth the development and character of Gothic architecture, I use the term "Gothic," because it has been established by custom to designate the architecture of the late Middle Ages as distinguished from that of ancient and early mediaeval times; and because, since it was owing to the infusion of Northern genius that the style was brought into being, it is not an entirely inappropriate term. But I use it in a restricted sense; confining it to that style of the Middle Ages which was most distinctly a mediæval product. In thus restricting the term, I am forced to exclude the greater part of what has usually been called Gothic architecture, because of its failure to exhibit those qualities of design and construction which are distinctive. The general term pointed architecture will suffice to include those inferior works which have been hitherto erroneously classed with Gothic. The position to which my study of the subject has led me differs considerably from that which has hitherto been maintained, especially by English writers. In the works of the true Gothic style a noble and well-conceived original design is carried out systematically, with strict logic of construction, with thorough regard to mechanical and statical principles, and with a controlling sense of beauty. They are works of the highest art, in which the understanding of technical methods is so complete as to serve as the secure foundation for the creations of the poetic imagination. It will, doubtless, seem to readers already more or less familiar with the subject an extravagant position that Gothic architecture, as I define it, was never practised elsewhere than in France. Yet from this position I can see no escape.

The French origin of Gothic is, indeed, now pretty generally admitted on the continent of Europe; but the exclusive claim of the architecture of France, in the Middle Ages, to be called Gothic has not thus far, so far as I know, been advanced. This being the case, nothing short of a close analysis and comparison of the different pointed styles of Europe—a work which, strange as it may seem, appears not before to have been undertaken—could be expected to establish a view so different from that which commonly prevails. I have, therefore, been impelled to undertake an examination of the architecture of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Europe, and I have endeavoured in this essay to illustrate the results of this examination in a clear and intelligible manner, and in such a way that, so far as might be, the monuments should speak for themselves. This examination I have made, for the most part, at first hand, except in regard to the architectures of Germany and Spain, my acquaintance with which is through books and photographs only.

The main conclusions of the book may, I fear, be unwelcome to many English readers who have regarded Gothic architecture as a no less English than continental product. But though, as I believe, the English claim to any share in the original development of Gothic, or to the consideration of the pointed architecture of the Island as properly Gothic at all, must be abandoned, there is yet abundant reason for English satisfaction in English architecture, as one of great nobleness and beauty, whose monuments can hardly be too highly prized or too zealously protected. And if the French monuments are found to be still more marvellous and beautiful, and to be the result of an earlier and more independent development, and even to have furnished the chief inspiration for what is best in England, these facts will, of course, be acknowledged with generous frankness so soon as they are seen to be established.

The idea has widely prevailed, and does still prevail, that Gothic was an art common to the nations of the North, and each country has in turn laid claim to superiority of style. This idea, as I endeavour to show, is incorrect, and has arisen largely from a lack of clear analysis of the true Gothic style, and from the habit of classing together, as if they were all of the same nature, various forms of pointed architecture which resemble each other only superficially. The peculiarities exhibited by the different countries have hitherto been taken merely as local variations of this supposed common style; and hence it has become usual to speak of French Gothic, of English Gothic, and of German Gothic, as if these various styles were all equally Gothic. Some writers have, in recent times, gone further, and have claimed for the countries, to which they have respectively belonged, the original invention of Gothic. Thus Rickman begins his well-known and valuable essay^[1] by saying: "The science of architecture may be considered in its most extended application to comprehend buildings of every kind; but at present we must consider it in one more restricted, according to which architecture may be said to treat of the planning and erection of edifices, which are composed and embellished after two principal modes: (1) the antique, or Grecian and Roman; (2) the English or Gothic." Some German writers have maintained with equal assurance that to German genius is due the origin and development of Gothic; while the French, though generally manifesting a preference for their own style, have perhaps made no greater claim than either the English or the Germans to its original authorship.

These various and conflicting views have retarded a true understanding of the arts of the Middle Ages; and they have naturally tended to strengthen the disesteem with which, in some quarters, since the time of Vasari, the Gothic style has been regarded. While the whole pointed architecture of Europe is taken together as Gothic, it is not strange that it should appear as an art without principles. But so soon as the principles of the true style are understood, and comparison of the architectures of the different countries is made by the light of them, the origin and exclusive existence of Gothic in France will be readily discerned.

It has been necessary to devote a considerable portion of the book to detailed descriptions of structural forms and adjustments. These may prove tedious to the unprofessional reader; but I have endeavoured to make them as brief as was consistent with thoroughness, and to express myself, as far as possible, in terms that may be generally understood.

The illustrations to the book have been reproduced either on wood or by mechanical process from drawings, the most of which were made on the spot, or from photographs, by myself. For some of the illustrations of sculpture the drawings have been made from photographs either by my daughter, or by myself; and several of the most elaborate illustrations of entire buildings have been drawn from photographs for the engraver by Mr. H. W. Brewer of London, the well-known architectural draughtsman.

I am indebted for help in gathering materials, and in other ways, to the kindness of many persons; but most especially to M. l'Abbé Müller of Senlis, to the Very Reverend William Butler, Dean of Lincoln, to my architect friends, Messrs. A. H. Mackmurdo of London, and W. P. P. Longfellow and C. A. Cummings of Boston, Massachusetts, to my friends, Professor George H. Palmer and Mr. Wm. C. Lane of Cambridge, Massachusetts (the latter of whom has prepared the index), and, above all, to my friend, Professor C. E. Norton of Cambridge, Massachusetts, without whose critical revision I should hardly have wished to publish the book.

Cambridge, Mass.,
October 1889.

 

1. "An Attempt to Discriminate the Styles of Architecture in England."