POI

317

POI

the

® 3 th e R° o mane «q«e or Debased Eoman, in a similar manner°i? an was > in a degree, an imitation of the Greciana (}g a - A j) at it owes its existence also—at least partially—“it th,t • 0:r nov ’elty, we are not in a position to contradict;Rre-.t U - ori S inated in Italy , we consider a matter ofheWelf lrn P r °bability. Dr. Whittaker, with whom Mr.' Vere kno 8 ° meW * lat a S rees 5 is °f opinion that pointed arches

ettl pire „ *°> and practised by, the Romans during the

Staples r 01 'S' na l ed in the intersection of cross-vaulting,Sp a | a( 0 w hich are to be seen in the palace of Diocletian ,,0t| i and f °' bb > 3 suggestion is very worthy of considera-!° ! ' 8 h'UcteH at ^ east > a method by which the pointed arch wasIjSulur c ’ and that, too, accidentally, as it were, and in,, 0,( ian s „ u t‘ se - Vaulting, we know, was employed by thee tded a n y , as a matter of necessity, cross-vaulting suc-'va« .] m some cases, by such a system, the pointed

U «« till bribed ’ ‘

Ut ? stan&

r ad vantage.

'vhi t '> C ° Iln

cases,

in the process. It is not unlikely that:e should have been noted, and turned to

h\

>ch

oth

pibiY;‘ ers -

b,

^as^ 1 * 011 w ' tb this should be considered an hypothesis,°een held li» n- Hiln» XT..

held by Dr. Milner, Mr. Bentham, and seve-1, ""a fa v : o and which has met with a considerable share ofi>een 8l , Ur ‘ -^heir supposition is that the pointed arch„ l '^ int, bv the intersection of semicircular arches.

by the intersection of semicircular arches,arches were largely employed in Normanas a means of decoration, there can be no ques-* 00 ’ P rev ' ous to the introduction of the pointed

' nte flaced

l >oti

‘“set,

! ‘ 1 ' c b. atld , tl| at,

Hi,

" Ct S is e r .f?°i! lted arches were thus formed by the inter-

r ei <WL equal b

tlQt. ea - ^

, — tuav i certa ' n i nor i s it at all improbable that

oh* °i' tli* lave suggested itself thereby. Still this solu-

".. ‘

■a i

questionIn

is not unattended with difficulty or

ll >s

c ular

,,tu the first place, Dr. Milner is evidently mcor-

la hnoI ' butin g i^ invention to Henry of Winchester , for

'“Vlf , a *at the abbey of Clugny, in France , where he

^ th e tl ? been monk, was constructed with pointed arches;

>ied it is more reasonable to suppose that he had

11 from . 6 1(iea fm- tUat building, rather than have invented

... of the form in the intersection of

i<;s 0 ,?‘ arches. But laying aside this objection, which

to a peculiar and individual instance, and con-

h°N«r ^eory simply on its own merits, we cannot

it? 1 ® satisfactory; for it is somewhat impro-

t ° ri giu i ' e fading feature of the style should have hadl ‘‘at ft ,ri an

.’titchil 3 Nervation

'Hi

in 8 r an(j accidental and unessential matter of detail;O* 1 from PUnciple construction should have beenhis q, e a uth 0r f ® ere method of decoration.f^nd 11 * 8: 'vh tb Ve asserted that the style was invented byj t . for S(lc ® er the term Gothic formed the principalHi C | 18 v ery 1 a « assertion, it is not easy to determine ;!?O 0 »ld ha ,n tllat no reason can be assigned for itv thi 8 Ve muc ^ greater weight than even this ; for

People, we have no reason to suppose that„' n y style of architecture of their own, but

• v it Theod° l lc ’ d ' ds ' ae re verse ; and although their „ JJh’n the same style88 ti U; 6 buildings, they were

conSU ;'i!?fountry. It i® «ueV Gd\ k CtUres alread y existing w the J states that

^ ^on, bis Fall of the Roman f^Vevona, still

<^ 8 «itation of Tlieodoric’s palace atve

Hljl 1 coin — ”

8 f u ,

o c!l a ?,! litect , ure; but in the work to which heli a ^ °He np aVln ® t * 1 ^ 3 coin, we find none, indeed, of

si"?,; 8 ;;, 1 .';*

suppli es the oldest and most authentic

'cl.

"V"' n so „

Vo. b y t |g g eat

. the building represented on whichssimilar style. One conclusive argument,this tlieory, consists in the fact, that no

■h.

■'Us

- J } wiioioto *** mvt) t'

st y!e has ever been known to exist which-at an antiquity as that desired to be estab-stutement: nn,i *.*..*«-*- that the Gothic

and, moreover,

4 M

style was not introduced into Italy till a comparatively lateperiod, when the Goths had been long since forgotten, and,indeed, never obtained a permanent footing in that country.

Other writers, with greater show of reason, have derivedour knowledge of this style from the Saracens , supposingit to have been brought over by the Crusaders : nor is suchan opinion taken up without good grounds, as it meets somegrand difficulties which others are subject to, and yet isin many points unsatisfactory. As regards its chronology,this tlieory is fortunate; for it certainly was about the timeof the Crusades that the style became prevalent ; while yet,on the other hand, there is good evidence to suppose that oneor two buildings of the kind existed in Europe before any ofthe Crusades had taken place. Another circumstance in itsfavour is, that it is the only supposition which will accountsatisfactorily for the simultaneous adoption of the stylethroughout Europe ; a circumstance which, in all the otherideas which have been broached, forms an insurmountableobjection to their acceptance. Whether the pointed archwas common in Saracenic buildings of the time, has been amatter of endless discussion ; nor does it seem to have everbeen satisfactorily proved or disproved, owing to a want ofaccurate information, and uncertainty as to the date of exist-ing examples. There seems reason to believe that the pointedarch did exist, but wgs not so prevalent as some would haveus suppose, or at least ifot in that form in which we find it inEurope ; but whether pointed arches were to be found ornot, is not a matter of such consequence as some would makeit; nor does it of necessity prove anything ; for we knowthat this form is to be found occasionally in ancient buildingsof other countries, from which no one has attempted todeduce its introduction into Europe . But even supposingthe styles to assimilate as regards the pointed arch, theyagree in no other principle ; in the buildings of the Saracens ,we find neither cross-vaulted roofs nor arcades forming naveand aisles, nor clustered columns, nor crocheted pinnacles,nor towers, nor spires : their mosques are mostly square onplan, and are conspicuous chiefly for their bulbous domes,the nearest approach to the Gothic spire being found in theminarets. The idea of Gothic windoiv-tracery is said to havebeen derived from the perforated fret-work of Arabian archi-tecture ; but if so, it must be recollected, that sucli tracery isonly to be found in the later examples when the style wasfully developed ; and, moreover, that we have a more satis-factory method of accounting for its introduction. The abovetheory is supported by Warburton, Warton, Whittington, LordAberdeen, and Sir Christopher Wren ; the last author, however,seems to prefer the supposition of tlie introduction of thearch into Europe by the Moors of Spain , hut for this opinionthere does not appear to be anything like the amount ofevidence which may be produced in favour of the former.Other writers prefer to give the honour to the Visi-Goths ofSpain , rather than to their Arabian invaders, but apparentlywith little better reason. In our own time, Mr. Ruskin,in bis “ Stones of Venice,” suggests, that, the gable,or pointed style, is the result of climate, and was designedto get rid of the rain, and the snow, as the flat roofs ofthe east were meant to guard against the sun. Oneobjection affects nearly all these theories : instead of theresemblance to the supposed prototype being, as it ought to be,the closest and most exact in the first stages of the style said tobe derived from it, the resemblance is there least of all dis-cernible. There is another objection, which touches every oneof them—they all seem to rest satisfied when they have found,or thought they have found, the origin of the pointed arch,forgetting that this does not comprise the entire question atissue ; their only inquiry appears to have been as to who