Page:A History of Architecture in All Countries Vol 2.djvu/339

Bk. Vm. Ch| til pointed ITALIAN GOTHIC. 323 churches vj'ere small, riiid generally devoid of tracery, with all its beautiful al^-comijaniments. The walls, too, being consequently solid, Avere sufficient, by their own weight to abut the thrust of the arches : so that neither projecting nor flying buttresses nor pinnacles were needed. The buildings were thus deprived externally of all the aspiring vertical lines so characteristic of true Gothic. The archi- tects, to' relieve the monotony arising from the want of these features, were forced to recur to the horizontal cornices of the classical times, and to cover their walls with a series of panelling, which, however beautiful in itself, is mere ornament — both unmeaning and inconsistent. Internally, too, having no clerestory to make room for, and no constructive necessities to meet, they jumped to the conclusion that the best design is that which covers the greatest space with the least expenditure of materials, and the least encumbrance of the floor. With builders this is a golden rule, but with architects it is about the worst that can possibly be adopted. The Germans were not free from this fault, but the Italians carried it still further. If on four or five piers they could support the vault of a whole nave, they never dreamed of introducing more. A French architect, though superior in constructive skill, would probably have introduced eight or ten in the same space. An Italian aimed at carrying the vaults of the side-aisles to the same height as that of the nave, if he could. A Northern archi- tect knew how to keep the two in their due proportion, whereby he obtained greater height and greater Avidthm the same bulk, and an appearance of height and width greater still, by the contrast between the parts, at the same time that he gave his building a character of strength and stability perliaps even more valuable than that of size. In the same manner, the Northern architects, while they grouped their shafts together, kept them so distinct as to allow every one to bear its proportional part of the load, and perform its allotted task. The Italians never comprehended this principle, but merely stuck pilasters back to back, in imitation of the true architects, producing an unmeaning and ugly pier. The same incongruities occur in every part and every detail. It is a style copied without understanding, and executed without feeling. The elegance of the sculptured foliage and other details sometimes goes far to redeem these faults ; for the Italians, though bad architects, were always beautiful carvers, and, as a Southern people, were free from the vulgarities sometimes apparent farther north, and never fell into the wild barbarisms which too often disfigure even the best buildings on this side of the Alps. Besides, when painting is joined to sculpture in churches, the architecture may come to occupy a subordinate position, and thus escape the censure it deserves. Unfortunately there are only two examples of any im- l>ortance in this style that retain all their painted decorations — St.