Volltext Seite (XML)
6 THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT’S JOURNAL. [January 1,18458. of a Masonic Lodge, in a public sermon at the laying of the corner-stone of a church, is public property. And many years ago I heard such an one say, in allusion to this—and an excel lent masonic sermon it was on all hands agreed to be—that the precious and beautiful casket remained to this day, but the still more precious and beautiful gem which that casket once con tained was gone, leaving behind it only the lustre shed by its former glory. For further evidence I must refer you to my letter, already alluded to, which I trust you will not fail to read, as containing the opinion of a very eminent philosophical writer upon some of the questions raised. But a more recent corro boration of that evidence I must briefly lay before you. In some of the French cathedrals there is a tradition that the geometrical form of some large wheel-window has formed the basis upon which the proportions of the whole edifice were de signed. And I am now able to introduce to your notice a con temporary testimony to this fact, in an incised slab representing the persons of the two architects of the church of S. Ouen, at Rouen.* One of them, Alexander de Bemeval, who died in 1440, A.D., was also architect to Henry V. of England. The elder of the two is admirably pourtrayed as a master in his craft, standing full face and dictating to his junior from a well-defined diagram the proportions for the church. This junior, standing half face towards him, and having set his dividers to the same gauge, receives from him these proportions, and is plotting them on his tablet, commencing apparently with a portion of the ground plan. The expression of gravity and dignity in the one, and of deference and assiduous attention in the other, are admirably delineated. The actual mode of ap plying the scheme is, of course, not detailed, but the intent of the artist to represent the fact of the scheme, and of its appli cation in the manner indicated is quite manifest. We see, then, that such was the case. And if these laws exist, and were prac tised, we may depend upon it that an architectural form will fail of harmony if these laws are set aside, as surely as we know that the stability of the building will be endangered by neglect of the laws of construction or of gravitation. Besides, it would have been most natural to suppose that the laws of geometry had some little relation, at least, to an art which is eminently geometrical in its main characteristics; and I would ask, in the name of all that we hold to be good and true and noble, why— when all other known arts have their laws—why should a bann be put on this law alone—the law relating to harmony and con cordance between the several parts comprising one great whole in architecture ? And as to the development of schools of art through tlie mere imitative or Eclectic processes, it is the greatest folly that ever took possession of a practical people. We aim at being too practical, and herein we attempt what is impracti cable. We see the end in view ; we see the glistening moun tain-top before us. It looks, in its piu'e whiteness against the blue sky, so near as to mock our senses with the pleasant delu sion that a short but steep ascent will land us safely on its sum mit. We turn towards it witli ready limb, and steady eye, and eager heart ; we make our way, indeed, but without the sustenance required for so long a journey, and so intent are we on our future prospect, that we lose sight of awkward little ridges intercepting our path, and of winding valleys, whose depth is to be tracked but by the blue mist which fills the air above them, and we are benighted before we have well nigh reached the mountain base. And this, I say, is a true and sober view of our case at the present time. Lotus awaken our guides ; they need a deal of rousing from their long lethargy during the dreary winter of the last three centuries. Call them early, for they have failed to call us, and let us lay in good store for the journey; for the day is all too short, and. human nature all too weak, without them for the accomplishment of our grand but arduous undertaking. Mr. White said he believed that in mediaeval times, when a church had to be built, the architect took a certain definite number of feet without a fractional part, say, for the length, as the basis of all the other proportions in the building. He could not tell whether that number had, in every case, a symbolic meaning, but in some cases it appeared, to have. The length of the building having been fixed, it became a question how to determine the other proportions. He had discovered one principle which had been carried out in very early work. At the church of St. Patrick, at Monknewtown, in Ireland, * See Boutell’s “Processes and Incised Slabs of the Middle Ages.” the length appeared to have been determined by the width of a vesica struck upon this as the diameter of a circle, from points on either side at a distance of two radii. These gave the width of the church, and this was a proportion often used for early lancets. He had discovered the same proportion in an early altar stone, of somewhat later date than that church, the measurement being 9 feet 3 inches long and nearly 2 feet 3 inches wide. The width was first determined, and three equilateral triangles drawn from which to obtain the length. The church of Temple Walsal, in Warwickshire, consisted of four bays; each bay consisted of a proportion of tri angles. It had been noticed that in some cases the triangles were drawn from the inside, and sometimes from the outside of the wall. This he believed was in consequence of the architects having, in the former case, more regard to the interior than exterior effect. He believed in every case it was better for the architect to make the interior his first consideration. In the churches of Steyning, in Sussex, and of Hackington, in Lincolnshire, similar principles of pro portion were observable. Even in Norman churches, whose plan was set out on the square, the elevations were on the principle of the triangle, though some of the proportions were determined by the breadth of a vesica struck from opposite angles upon the diagonal as a base. Towards the end of the 15th century the use of the triangle seemed to have been given up, and architects worked upon subdivisions of the proportion of the hypothenuse to the base of the square. Mr. Blashill had listened to the paper with considerable interest and expectation. The subject had lain dormant for some time, and Mr. White’s well-known ability and success had led him to expect the enunciation of facts and principles of the utmost value to the archi tectural world. Mr. White’s remarks on the general subject were extremely interesting. He (Mr. Blashill) had, however, felt a great lack throughout the paper of those illustrations and proofs which Mr. Travers’ question had, in some measure, elicited. The great interest lay in the practical working out of the question. The two great points which required consideration were, first, the evidences which was to be found in ancient work that architects actually did proceed on such a principle; and, secondly, how had it been applied in Mr. White’s own experience, and whether it was better than any other system, or than no system at all. It was to be expected that mediaeval architects should have some general and easily to be remembered rule of propor tion. The present generation of architects had much greater facilities than they; we had better instruments, scales, paper, and materials of all sorts. It seemed to him (Mr. Blashill) that the equilateral triangle was employed simply because it was a figure which could readily be made with a pair of compasses. The width of a building would first be determined, and then it was a simple matter to make three or four triangles on the basis of the width, and then get the length. It was an easy measurement to carry in the memory, much easier than any proportion stated in figures, for it would apply to all kinds of dimen sions, and would thus commend itself to the mind of the architect. Then, if he found that proportion successful, he would make use of it in another building, and would tell his brother architects about it, and so the method would spread. Then, again, he (Mr. Blashill) would like to know if Mr. White had found that any slight deviation from these proportions 'would damage the excellence of the design. For his own part, he did not believe that it would. He did not believe that a difference of two or three inches, or even feet in large dimen sions, more or less, would be, in the least degree, perceptible. He considered the measurements were mere matters of convenience. He failed to see that any results, as regards beauty, were arrived at by using the system. He also noticed that the system was not always the same. If one system answered the end, why were the others intro duced ? They had triangles at one period, squares at another. The triangles, besides, had not their points at one fixed spot. Sometimes they were drawn from the inside and sometimes from the outside of the wall, and sometimes from the buttresses. In fact, the system seemed to be fitted to the building, and not the building to the system, and it would be very hard indeed if, in that way, Mr. White could not obtain some result which would seetn to countenance his theory. That was his impression from the materials before them, but it was worth notice that, supposing an instance when, say, the internal ele vation of a church had been throughout set'up upon a system of equi lateral triangles, and it was desired to give it greater lightness or solidity, the mere raising or depressing of the triangles throughout to an equal degree, would probably effect the required change, and pre serve due proportion in all the parts. This would be vastly more simple than calculating the proportions of every part; but the true test, after all, would be whether the eye was satisfied, and not whether the system was beautiful in theory. Mr. Lacy W. Ridge took the opposite view from Mr. Blashill, and believed that Mr. White’s theory had a strong foundation in fact. Mr. Blashill had objected that the system of proportion differed in each case. That, however, did not affect the proposition maintained by Mr. White, which, as understood by him (Mr. Ridge), was that the medieval archi tects gave to the parts of their buildings proportions founded on geome trical figures, and not such as were arrived at by chance. The special
