Part I. Bk. Iii. Ch. 2.

Footnote 324:

For a complete description of the same, see ‘The Architectural History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem,’ by Prof. Willis, 1849, the publications of the Palestine Exploration Fund, and the ‘Holy Places of Jerusalem,’ by Prof. Hayter Lewis.

Footnote 325:

Eusebius, ‘Vita Constantini,’ lib. iii. ch. xxviii.

Footnote 326:

Sæwulf, ‘Peregrinatio,’ &c. (A.D. 1102-3), p. 83.

Footnote 327:

A section of the church is given in Prof. Willis’s work compiled partly from Bernardino’s work (‘Trattato delle Piante al Imagini de sacri Edifizi di Terra Sancta,’ 1620), corrected by dimension taken by Mr. J. J. Scoles and partly from models in the British Museum and elsewhere.

Footnote 328:

This plan has been worked out from the ordnance survey made in 1864-65 by Sir Ch. Wilson and from Professor Willis’s plan as published in his work.

Footnote 329:

Quaresimus, ‘Elucidatio,’ ii. p. 386.

Footnote 330:

All these are carefully described and delineated by Count de Vogüé, in his beautiful work entitled, ‘Les Églises de la Terre Sainte,’ Paris, 1860.

Footnote 331:

A small chart of the same sort has been published by M. de Caumont, which, though an improvement, still leaves much to be desired; but until every church is examined, and every typical specimen at least published, it is impossible to mark out more than the general features of the chart. Imperfect, however, as they are in this one, they are still more numerous and more detailed than it will be easy for us to follow and to trace out in the limited space of this work.

Footnote 332:

‘Abécédaire d’Architecture,’ p. 174.

Footnote 333:

The use of this term is a little awkward, at first from its having another meaning in English; it has, however, been long used by English etymologists to distinguish the Romance languages, such as Italian, Spanish, and French, from those of Teutonic origin, and is here used in precisely the same sense as applied to architecture—to those styles derived from the Roman, but one degree more removed from it than the early phase of the Romanesque.

Footnote 334:

There seems to be some doubt about the age of the pointed arches in the mosque of Amrû; the earliest authenticated arches of that form are found in the Nilometer in the island of Roda which is fixed by Mr. Lane as 861 A.D., eighteen years older than that of Tulûn.—ED.

Footnote 335:

For the detail of the argument I must refer the reader to a paper read by me to the Institute of British Architects on June 18th, 1849, and published in the ‘Builder,’ and other papers of the time. See also a paper read in the same place in the following month (July, 1849), by Sir Gardner Wilkinson.

Footnote 336:

The Scotch and Irish Celts seem to have had a conception of this truth, and in both these countries we find some bold attempts at true stone roofs: the influence, however, of the Gothic races overpowered them, and the mixed roof became universal.

Footnote 337:

Laborde, ‘Monuments de la France,’ vol. i. p. 92, plates cxv. and cxvi.

Footnote 338:

Footnote 339:

Wood’s ‘Letters of an Architect,’ vol. i. p. 163.

Footnote 340:

These are all illustrated more or less completely by Renouvier, ‘Monuments de Bas Languedoc.’ Montpellier, 1840.

Footnote 341:

M. Verneilh, in his work “Architecture Byzantine en France,” 4to, Paris, 1851, based his arguments chiefly on the supposition that it was copied from St. Mark’s, Venice. The discoveries to which we have already referred (p. 530, vol. I.) prove that the latter was not built till 1063-71, so that it follows that a much later date must be given to St. Front, unless the latter be, like St. Mark’s, a copy of the church of the Apostles at Constantinople. Against this supposition there remains the fact that the churches of St. Mark, Venice, and St. Front, Périgueux, are identical in their dimensions if we replace Italian feet by French feet. There is also a record quoted by Mr. Gailhabaud that the original church of St. Front was destroyed by fire in 1120; but the existing church is entirely built in incombustible material, and therefore it would seem to be more probable that a much later date, viz. 1120-1140, must be given to it. It should however be taken into account that St. Front is generally accepted as the prototype of all the domed churches in France, so that if any of its successors could be proved to have an earlier date our argument would fall to the ground. So far as the architectural details of the church are concerned they have more the character of the 12th than of the 11th century, and the introduction of the pointed arch at so early a date seems improbable, except so far as the pointed barrel vault is concerned, the necessity for which was pointed out on page 46.

Footnote 342:

This building is well illustrated in Turner’s ‘Domestic Architecture.’

Footnote 343:

See a paper on this church by Mr. Street, in 1861, read to the Institute of British Architects. (R. I. B. A. Transactions, 1860-61.)

Footnote 344:

‘Histoire Générale de Bourgogne,’ 4 vols. fol., Dijon, 1739; p. 81.

Footnote 345:

“Style Latin” is the name generally adopted for this style by the French architects.

Footnote 346:

From a paper by Mr. Parker on this subject, read to the Institute of British Architects.

Footnote 347:

This arrangement is known by the name of hexapartite, or sexapartite, because the compartment of the vault having been divided into four by the great diagonal arches crossing one another in the centre (which was the quadripartite arrangement), two of the four quarters were again divided by the arch thrown across from one intermediate pillar to the other, thus making six divisions in all, though no longer all of equal dimensions, as in the quadripartite method. Both these arrangements are shown in plan on Woodcut No. 612.

Footnote 348:

The Church of St. Rémi at Rheims ought perhaps to be treated as an exception to this assertion: it has, however, been so much altered in more modern times as almost to have lost its original character. It nevertheless retains the outlines of a vast and noble basilica of the early part of the 11th century, presenting considerable points of similarity to those of Burgundy.

Footnote 349:

It is in the vaulting of the choir aisle of St. Denis that we find the earliest example of the new value of the pointed arch rib: four independent ribs rise to the centre of the aisle, it being no longer necessary to place the opposite ribs in the same plane. M. Louis Gonse in his ‘L’Art Gothique,’ however, points out one or two earlier examples such as the churches of Morienval and Bellefontaine, both in the Oise Department; the latter only is dated—1125; but no illustrations of the vault are given. The former is so crude in its design that it is probably earlier, and it is in fact evident from the perfection shown in St. Denis that many previous experiments must have been made, examples of which it would be interesting to trace.—ED.

Footnote 350:

These generally consisted of strong iron bars, wrought into patterns in accordance with the design painted on the glass.

Footnote 351:

Royal Academy lectures, delivered in 1881, by G. E. Street, R.A., Professor of Architecture.

Footnote 352:

It should be noted that the last bay of the nave and the first bay of the choir are wider than any of the other bays, and this gives an increased dimension to the aisles of north and south transepts, which contributes in no slight degree to the effect of vastness given to this part of the church.—ED.

Footnote 353:

The height of the old spire is 342 ft. 6 in. with the cross; of the new, 371 ft.

Footnote 354:

The choir of Beauvais is considered to be one of the four wonders of mediæval France, the others being the south spire of Chartres, the porch of Rheims and the nave of Amiens.

Footnote 355:

‘Compte Rendu des Travaux de la Commission des Monuments,’ &c.: Rapport présenté au Préfet de la Gironde, 1848 et seq.

Footnote 356:

A plan of the Sainte Chapelle will be found further on (page 395) when comparing it with St. Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster.

Footnote 357:

Mr. Beresford Hope, in his ‘English Cathedrals of the XIXth Century,’ contends that this church was only commenced in 1419; and also maintains that the west front was completed by an English architect named Patrick in 1429. If this were so, we must abandon all our chronology founded on style. It is all a mistake if the east end is not a century earlier. I am, however, unwilling to go to school again, on the faith of a little pamphlet published by a French curé in a remote village.

Footnote 358:

The earlier form is found retained at Noyon, at Paris, and in most of the churches of the 12th century; but in the first years of the 13th it gave place to the second, and was not afterwards revived.

Footnote 359:

See Introduction, page 29, Woodcut No. 4.

Footnote 360:

The French antiquaries employ this word as if it signified a pointed arch, whence they designate the style itself as ogival. There is no doubt, however, that the word has nothing to do with the form of the arch or the ogee, but is the name of a rib common to the round-arched as well as to the pointed style.

Footnote 361:

See Woodcuts Nos. 621, 629, 641, &c.

Footnote 362:

This was taken down in 1856 to relieve the piers of the tower which were being crushed owing to their defective construction. After the rebuilding of the piers in 1856-59, a poorly designed Gothic lantern was substituted.—ED.

Footnote 363:

M. Viollet le Duc’s ‘Dictionnaire d’Architecture’ contains several hundred examples of these minor architectural details of French Mediæval architecture. All are there drawn with skill, and engraved with exquisite taste. They form a wonderful illustration of the exuberance of fancy and fertility of invention of the French architects in those days. The limits of this work do not admit of more than a mere passing allusion to this most fascinating subject.

Footnote 364:

Viollet le Duc, in his ‘Architecture Militaire,’ p. 96, gives a section of the Donjon at Coucy, which, however, by no means explains how the interior was lighted, nor does it accord with what I believe I saw there.

Footnote 365:

A beautiful drawing of this façade to a very large scale still exists in the town-hall of the city, as well as a model in stone, from which the intended effect may be seen.

Footnote 366:

A large work was commenced a few years ago on the church at Bois le Duc; but after the first numbers it seems to have been discontinued, and has not been since heard of—in this country at least. [Since this was written a fine work in 8 vols., entitled ‘Documents classés de l’art dans les Pays-Bas du x^{me} au xviii^{me} Siècle,’ and illustrated with ink photos, has been compiled by M. Van Ysendyck; and although the greater number of the plates represent Renaissance work, some of the finest flamboyant Gothic buildings, both in Belgium and Holland, are there reproduced.—ED.]

Footnote 367:

See two papers on this subject in ‘Jahrbuch der Central Commission zur Erhaltung der Baudenkmale,’ vol. ii. p. 65, and vol. iii. p. 149.

Footnote 368:

The work of F. Östen on the architecture of Lombardy, and that of Geier and Görtz on the style in the Rhine country, combined with the works of Boisserée, have already furnished considerable materials for such a history. Both these first-named works were left incomplete, the former from the death of the author, the latter owing to the late troubles of the country.

Footnote 369:

See vol. i. p. 513.

Footnote 370:

All the particulars regarding this church are taken from Hübsch, ‘Altchristliche Bauwerke,’ pp. 109, xlix. Dohme ascribes the church to the 11th century, and gives the length as 283 ft.

Footnote 371:

That shown in the woodcut is a suggestion of Dr. Hübsch.

Footnote 372:

If there are any remains of the monastic buildings at Reichenau it is extremely desirable that they should be examined, in order to see how far they accord with the St. Gall plan. What if it should turn out to be a perfected plan of Reichenau sent after its completion by the abbot Heiton to his friend Gospertus?

Footnote 373:

‘Histoire de l’Architecture Sacrée du 4^{me} au 10^{me} Siècle dans les Évêchés de Genève, Lausanne, et Sion,’ 1853.

Footnote 374:

The earliest example is found in the Baptistery at Ravenna, 396 A.D.

Footnote 375:

Kallenbach, (‘Deutsche Baukunst,’) states that it was built by Bishop Garibald, 740-752. It is the chapel on the north side of cloisters of Cathedral (see ‘King’s Study Book,’ vol ii. p. 81).

Footnote 376:

At Aquileja, at the upper end of the Adriatic Gulf, Poppo, the archbishop, between the years 1019-1042, erected a building almost identical with this in every respect between the old basilica and the baptistery, so as to make a double-apse church out of the old Lombard arrangement. The similarity of the two buildings may probably bring down the date of that at Ratisbon to the 10th century.

Footnote 377:

‘Baukunst des Mittelalters in Sachsen.’

Footnote 378:

The church was burnt in 937, and is said to have had two choirs (added c. 816 by Abbot Engil), a western transept, and eleven bays to the nave.

Footnote 379:

It is by no means clear that there were not six pillars originally separating the nave from the aisles instead of the four now built into the piers of the Gothic church.

Footnote 380:

Taken from R. Dohme, ‘Geschichte der Deutschen Baukunst.’ Berlin, 1887.

Footnote 381:

Möller, ‘Deutsche Baukunst,’ vol. i. plate vi.

Footnote 382:

This has been entirely rebuilt, with a modern front.—ED.

Footnote 383:

For a description of this abbey see a paper read by Mr. Charles Fowler (R. I. B. A. Transactions, 1882-83).

Footnote 384:

Footnote 385:

The building is as yet practically unedited, notwithstanding its importance in the history of architecture. I have myself examined this edifice, but in too hurried a manner to enable me to supply the deficiency. I speak, therefore, on the subject with diffidence.

Footnote 386:

Taken from Schayes’ ‘Histoire de l’Architecture en Belgique,’ vol. ii. p. 18, taken by him, I believe, from Lassaulx.

Footnote 387:

See paper by Mr. Petit in the ‘Archæological Journal,’ vol. xviii. p. 110.

Footnote 388:

Boisserée, ‘Nieder Rhein,’ p. 36.

Footnote 389:

There is a slight error in the scale of this plan, the artist in reducing it having used the scale of French instead of English feet. It ought to be 1-16th larger.

Footnote 390:

The best résumé of the arguments on this question will be found in the controversy carried on by F. de Verneilh, the Baron de Rosier, and M. Boisserée, in Didron’s ‘Annales Archéologiques,’ vol. vii. et seq.

Footnote 391:

Within the last few years also the cathedral has been isolated on all sides, so that it has now the appearance of an overgrown monster—ED.

Footnote 392:

From the ‘Jahrbuch der Central Commission zur Erhaltung der Baudenkmale,’ vol. ii. p. 37.

Footnote 393:

See ‘Mittelalterliche Kunstdenkmale Östereichs,’ vol. i. p. 171.

Footnote 394:

The façade designed for the cathedral at Louvain (mentioned p. 196) was identical with this group of spires in arrangement, though on a much larger scale, and infinitely richer in ornament.

Footnote 395:

Mr. Hodder Westropp was, I believe, the first to suggest this identity of the Round Towers with these “Fanals,” or Lanternes des Mortes. It seems to be the most plausible suggestion yet made, though far from meeting the whole difficulty.

Footnote 396:

‘Denkmäler der Baukunst in Ermeland.’ Berlin.

Footnote 397:

Mr. Tavenor Perry, in his paper on the ‘Mediæval Architecture in Sweden’ (R.I.B.A. Transactions, vol. vii. new series, 1891), points out that the architecture of the choir is of much earlier date than Étienne de Bonnueill’s advent, that the foundation was laid in 1258, and already in 1273 was well advanced. He takes objection also to the assumed French origin of the plan, which is more like German work. The plan bears some resemblance to the chevet of Westminster Abbey, the lady-chapel of which, pulled down by Henry VII., was commenced in 1220 by Henry III. There are only five chapels, as in Westminster Abbey, and they are of greater width than any French examples. Étienne’s work was probably confined to the three great portals, though Mr. Perry believes that he did much to improve the design, and probably helped to “found a new school of sculptors.”—ED.

Footnote 398:

‘The Priory of St. Mary Overie, Southwark.’ F. T. Dollman, London, 1881.

Footnote 399:

These churches are nearly all brick: those of Lund and Linköping are in stone.

Footnote 400:

Both in design and purpose this circular part of Trondhjem Cathedral is an exact counterpart of Becket’s Crown at Canterbury. That was erected as a baptistery and burial-place for the archbishops, and seems to have been afterwards incorporated in the cathedral, more Francorum.

Footnote 401:

The octagonal dome on the east end has been lately restored, but not improved.—ED.

Footnote 402:

The plan and elevation are taken from a description of the church by Steen Friis, published at Copenhagen, 1851. In both cuts the modern additions are omitted.

Footnote 403:

It has lately been well restored (1881).—ED.

Footnote 404:

Gothland was Christianized by St. Olaf in 1028; the first churches, in wood, were soon burnt down, and the earliest stone examples now known are those of Akebäch and Ala, which date from 1149.

Footnote 405:

An elevation and section of the church by Mr. Haig is given in the R. I. B. A. Transactions, new series, vol. ii.

Footnote 406:

Two examples are pointed out by Mr. Carpenter (R.I.B.A. Transactions, new series, vol. ii. 1886) as existing in England, viz.: Hannington Church, Northamptonshire, and Caythorpe Church, Lincolnshire.

Footnote 407:

‘One Year in Sweden,’ Murray, 1862.

Footnote 408:

‘The Ecclesiology of Gothland and the Churches of Bornholm,’ by Major Alfred Heales, F.S.A., 1889.

Footnote 409:

Two in Zealand—Storehedinge and Biernede; one in Funen—Horne, at Faaborg; one in Jutland—Thorsager; and four in Bornholm—Oester Larsker, Nykers, Ols, and Ny. (Vol. ii. p. 49.)

Footnote 410:

Documentary evidence now establishes the fact that the nave of Waltham Abbey was Harold’s original work, though subsequently enriched by carving.

Footnote 411:

This has been restored, as far as the materials admit, by Professor Willis, in his ‘Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral,’ published in 1845.

Footnote 412:

“Qui ecclesiam in orientali parte majoris ecclesiæ eidem pene contiguam in honore Beati Johannis Baptistæ fabricavit; ut et Baptisteria et examinationes Judiciorum, &c.—et Archiepiscoporum corpora in eâ sepelirentur.”—‘Anglia Sacra,’ vol. ii. p. 75.

Footnote 413:

The internal dimensions of Durham Cathedral are 413·10 feet, exclusive of the Galilee. The nave is 81 feet wide, the choir, 77·2. (Billings.)

Footnote 414:

The proper effect of this part of Ely Cathedral has been seriously marred by the erection of the new reredos. In itself a fair specimen of modern Gothic, it is placed so far from the choir as to lose its proper effect. It is painfully dwarfed by the large plain area in front of it. But worse than this, it cuts up and destroys the most beautiful presbytery in England after the Angel Choir at Lincoln. The architects of Walsingham’s time glazed two compartments of the triforium to throw light upon the principal object in the choir, which was intended to stand two bays farther forward. It would have been well if the 19th-century restorers had taken the hint.

Footnote 415:

The foundations of the Lady Chapel of Henry III. were found a few years ago almost at the extreme east end of Henry VII.’s Chapel, so that it can scarcely be said to have formed part of a circlet.

Footnote 416:

It should be remembered, however, that the first addition, made in 1220, was the original Lady Chapel; when Henry III. determined to rebuild the church and to adopt the plan of the French chevet, the width of the other chapels would seem to have been governed by that of the Lady Chapel. This, however, was 30 ft. wide—much greater than any French chapel. To complete the ring, therefore, he was obliged to carry them further west, so that the five chapels occupy a space equal in comparison to the seven chapels of Amiens, where the width of each is only 25 ft. A comparison of the two chevets will show how ingenious was the English arrangement; and as the vaulting is essentially English in its setting out and in its design, it is only the idea of the plan which was borrowed. On this subject Mr. Street remarks, p. 426 (‘Lectures on English Architecture,’ Memoir of G. E. Street, R.A., by A. E. Street, M.A. 1883), “Here the evidence of the building itself seems to be conclusive that the king had resolved to build a church after the model of the great French churches, but employed an English architect to design it, and he made his plan on lines which are distinct and different from those of any French church.”

Footnote 417:

The roofs here alluded to must not be confounded with the barn-like roofs of remote village churches which modern architects are so fond of copying, but such roofs as that of St. Stephen’s Chapel, and many of those of the Lancastrian era.

Footnote 418:

This, and a considerable number of the woodcuts in this chapter, are borrowed from the plates of the beautiful series of ‘Handbooks of the English Cathedrals,’ published by Mr. Murray. In order to prevent needless repetition, they are marked Cath. Hb.

Footnote 419:

This has already been explained in the chapters on French architecture, especially at pages 114 and 169.

Footnote 420:

In Woodcut No. 822 the right-hand bay is that of the nave generally, the left-hand bay is adapted to the greater width of the aisle of the transept, and is less pleasingly proportioned in consequence. Woodcuts Nos. 822 and 823 are drawn to the scale of 25 feet to 1 inch, or double that usually employed for elevations in this work.

Footnote 421:

It is not necessary to repeat here what was said on the subject in speaking of French tracery, p. 164, to which the reader is referred.

Footnote 422:

This was not so much the case in Paris and Rouen, where the houses were carried up to a much greater height than in other towns.—ED.

Footnote 423:

A splendid chance of trying the effect of this occurred a few years ago, when it was determined to restore the lantern, as a memorial to Dr. Peacock. In a fit of purism, only the ugly temporary arrangement was made new. It looked venerable before the recent repairs; now that it is quite new again, it is most unpleasing.

Footnote 424:

The towers of Lincoln were surmounted by three spires, removed about 100 years ago.

Footnote 425:

The central octagon of the Parliament Houses is 65 ft. in diameter, and is the best specimen of a modern Gothic dome which has been attempted.

Footnote 426:

A chapel, properly speaking, is a hall designed for worship, without any separation between classes. A church has a chancel for the clergy, a nave for the laity. A cathedral has these and attached chapels and numerous adjuncts which do not properly belong to either of the other two.

Footnote 427:

Few things of its class are more to be regretted than the destruction of this beautiful relic in rebuilding the Parliament Houses. It would have been cheaper to restore it, and infinitely more beautiful when restored than the present gallery which takes its place. It is sad, too, to think that nothing has been done to reproduce its beauties. When the colleges of Exeter at Oxford, or St. John’s, Cambridge, were rebuilding their chapels, it would have been infinitely better to reproduce this exquisite specimen of English art than the models of French chapels which have been adopted.

The work on St. Stephen’s Chapel, published for the Woods and Forests by Mr. Mackenzie, is rendered useless by the addition of an upper storey which never existed.

Footnote 428:

The Sainte Chapelle was commenced 1244, and finished 1248. The works of St. Stephen’s were commenced apparently 1292, but were not finished till 1348.

Footnote 429:

Vide ante, p. 264, and p. 328.

Footnote 430:

Mr. Scott produced a free copy of one of them as the Oxford Martyrs’ Memorial, and Edward Barry another as a restoration of Charing Cross. Both are very beautiful objects, but neither of them exhausts the subject.

Footnote 431:

It is not pretended that this Table is quite correct in all details, but it is sufficiently so to present at a glance, a comparative view of the fourteen principal churches of England, and to show at least their relative dimensions.

Footnote 432:

The illustrations in this chapter being taken from the beautiful work by R. W. Billings, entitled ‘The Baronial and Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Scotland,’ the source of each will not be specified, except when it forms an exception to this rule. Mr. Billings’ work is certainly the most correct and beautiful that has yet appeared on the subject, and if completed with the necessary plans and architectural details, would be unrivalled as a monograph of an architectural province.

Footnote 433:

Britton’s ‘Architectural Antiquities,’ vol. xiv. p. 81.

Footnote 434:

For the drawings and information regarding Bothwell Church, I am indebted to Mr. John Honeyman, jun., architect, of Glasgow.

Footnote 435:

The same class of tracery is found in the Lamberti Kirche at Münster, and generally in Westphalia; some specimens being almost absolutely identical with the Scotch examples.

Footnote 436:

The woodcuts in this chapter are, with one or two exceptions, borrowed from Wilkinson’s ‘Ancient Architecture and Geology of Ireland.’

Footnote 437:

No buildings with architectural details in them are known prior to 1000 A.D.

Footnote 438:

Seven churches are also found at Scattery and Innis Caltra in Clare, Tory Island, Donegal, Rattoo in Kerry, Inchclorin, Longford, and Arranmore in Galway.

Footnote 439:

The Rev. Professor Stokes, in a paper communicated to the Royal Society of Antiquaries in Ireland, and published in their Journal, 1891, states: “The connexion with Egypt of the Celtic Church of these Western Islands of Britain, as well as of Ireland, cannot now be controverted.” He points out that the object of the ancient monks of the 5th and 6th centuries was “not to draw large assemblies, but to get as far away from them as possible; and assuredly they selected a lonely if not a weird spot when they selected the Skelligs.” The Professor gives a long list of places where specimens of these island monasteries can be found; the best example still existing being that of Incheleraun in Lough Ree, and commonly called Quaker Island, some ten miles above Athlone, where six or seven tiny churches just like those of Clonmacnoise (Woodcut No. 904) or Glendalough (Woodcut No. 902) still perpetuate the name of St. Dermot or St. Diarmaid, the teacher of St. Kieran, and a Celtic saint and doctor who lived just after the days of St. Patrick and St. Bridget. The monastic cells at the Skelligs, which are known as beehive huts, are sometimes square and sometimes circular in plan, in both cases covered with domical roofs of stone laid in horizontal courses similar to the Treasury of Atreus (Woodcut No. 124). In some cases those chambers are so limited in height and width that it is possible neither to stand upright nor lie down in them with ease. These beehive huts are apparently the prototypes of the oratories which, though rectangular in plan, are, like the Oratory of Gallerus (Woodcut No. 917) and St. Kevin’s Kitchen, Glendalough (Woodcut No. 902), covered with roofs of stone all laid in horizontal courses.—ED.

Footnote 440:

‘The Ecclesiastical Architecture of Ireland anterior to the Anglo-Norman Invasion.’ Dublin, 1845.

Footnote 441:

See Viollet le Duc, ‘Dictionnaire d’Architecture,’ sub “fanal.”

Footnote 442:

One of the towers in the East that bears most directly on the history of these Irish towers is that discovered by Dr. Tristram near Um Rasas. It is described and figured at page 145 in his work on the ‘Land of Moab;’ but unfortunately the woodcut is taken from the side that does not represent the doorway with the cross over it so like that at Antrim (Woodcut No. 907), and elsewhere. Like most of the Irish examples, it is situated at about 10 ft. from the ground. There is no other opening to the tower, except one on each face at the top. It has also the peculiarity that it stands free but close to a small cell or chapel, as is the case with almost all the Irish towers. The one point in which it differs from the Irish examples is that its plan is square instead of being circular. This does not seem so important as it at first sight may appear, seeing how many circular minarets were afterwards erected in the East, which must have had a model somewhere. Practically, therefore, this Moabite tower may be described, Hibernicè, as a square Irish round tower.

Footnote 443:

Compare this with the contemporary tower at Ghazni, in the chapters on Saracenic Architecture in India in vol. iii.

Footnote 444:

Numerous examples of Byzantine interlaced work of all periods will be found in Cattaneo’s work ‘On the Influence of Byzantine Art in Italy from the 5th to the 11th centuries.’

Footnote 445:

So much of the information regarding Spanish architecture which is contained in the following pages, is derived from Mr. Street’s beautiful work, entitled ‘Gothic Architecture in Spain,’ published in 1865, that it has not been thought necessary to refer specially to that work in the text. With one or two exceptions, all the plans are reduced from those in Mr. Street’s book, and many of the woodcuts are also his. If any one will take the trouble of comparing the very meagre account of Spanish architecture contained in the ‘Handbook,’ with what is said in this work, they will at once perceive my obligations to Mr. Street. His work is a model of its class, and has quite revolutionised our knowledge of the subject.

Footnote 446:

Parcerisa, ‘Recuerdos y Bellezas de España,’ Asturias, p. 78.

Footnote 447:

‘Monumentos Arquitectonicos.’

Footnote 448:

‘Monumentos Arquitectonicos.’

Footnote 449:

Ibid.

Footnote 450:

These external porticoes would be admirably adapted for imitation in the climate of India.

Footnote 451:

The Spanish arrangement has recently been adopted in Westminster Abbey, more by accident than design; with an effect as disastrous as anything in Spain, and apparently as little felt. In monastic churches the choir is always in a gallery above the west doorway.

Footnote 452:

The Church of St. Eustache at Paris was commenced as late as 1532, and, although its plan is almost as Gothic as those of the Spanish examples, the details of the French church are far more essentially Renaissance throughout.

Footnote 453:

The room called Paranimfo in the University of Alcala (see Woodcut No. 89, History of Modern Architecture, vol. i.) is of precisely similar design to this, only carried out with Renaissance instead of Moorish detail.

Footnote 454:

An engraving of this tower is given in Street’s ‘Gothic Architecture in Spain,’ page 225, accompanied with a very complete enumeration of all the examples of the style to be found in Toledo.

Footnote 455:

Another example exists at Palma, in the island of Majorca, in which there are no capitals to the columns, the ribs of the vault dying into the shaft.

Footnote 456:

These were destroyed by a fire which occurred between thirty and forty years ago.

Footnote 457:

Abulfeda, ed. Reiske, vol. i. p. 32.

Footnote 458:

‘The History of Jerusalem.’ Besant and Palmer, 1888.

Footnote 459:

‘The Holy Places of Jerusalem,’ by T. Hayter Lewis, F.S.A. Murray, 1889.

Footnote 460:

‘Description of Syria,’ by Mukaddasi. Translated and annotated by George le Strange for the Palestine Pilgrims’ Society. London, 1886.

Footnote 461:

Mejr ed-Deen. ‘Fundgruben des Orients.’

Footnote 462:

Transactions of the Royal Institution of British Architects, 1878-79.

Footnote 463:

Ante, p. 228, vol. i.

Footnote 464:

I state these dimensions very doubtfully, the ground outside the present mosque never having been carefully surveyed by any one competent to restore the original plan.

Footnote 465:

‘History of Jerusalem,’ translated by the Rev. M. Reynolds, p. 409 et seqq.

Footnote 466:

Translated by Jaubert, tom. i. p. 303. The particulars of the description in the text are taken from M. Girault de Prangey ‘Monuments Arabes,’ compared with M. Coste’s ‘Edifices de Caire.’

Footnote 467:

It should be noted that all these arcades run in the direction of the Kibleh or Mecca wall, and the same principle is observed at Kerouan, Cordoba, and other mosques built entirely for Mahomedan worship.

Footnote 468:

M. Coste makes all these arches pointed. M. de Prangey states that they are all circular; the truth being that they are partly one, partly the other.

Footnote 469:

Since then the arches have been built up, and it was for a time converted into a hospital. This now (1892) is under the care of the Commissioner for the preservation of ancient monuments, but is too far ruined to be long preserved.

Footnote 470:

See Coste’s ‘Edifices de Caire,’ p. 32, quoting from Makrisi.

Footnote 471:

‘The Ancient Coptic Churches,’ by A. J. Butler, Oxford, 1884.

Footnote 472:

The marble wall decoration and the mosaics which are found in later mosques are of different design and execution from that found in Byzantine buildings; in fact as Mr. Butler remarks: “this form of art was borrowed by the Muslim builders, or rather was lent by the Coptic architects and builders, whom the Muslims employed for the construction of their mosques.” “Although the Saracens in Syria borrowed the art from Byzantium and used vitreous enamels for the decoration of their mosque walls, as well as for inlaying jewelry and steel armour on a smaller scale, yet the Mahomedans of Egypt never adopted any but the native or Coptic marble mosaic, partly because its unpictorial character suited their taste, and partly because they found, ready made, both art and artists—artists whose names have perished, but whose skill is still recorded in work of unexampled splendour which adorns the great Mosques of Cairo.”

Footnote 473:

The mosque cathedrals of Cordoba and Seville and the contemporary Arabic buildings. Transactions, R.I.B.A., 1882-83.

Footnote 474:

A view of it will be found in vol. ii. ‘History of the Modern Style of Architecture,’ 1891, p. 314.

Footnote 475:

To get it within the page, the scale of the plan is reduced to 200 French, or 212 English ft. to 1 in.

Footnote 476:

When the great national work, entitled ‘Monumentos Arquitectonicos d’España,’ is complete, this reproach will be removed, but that certainly will not be the case for ten or twelve years to come, if it ever does attain completion. The scale is too large, and the total want of principle on which it is carried out renders it useless till it is further advanced. Twenty-three numbers are published, but not one important building is complete, and, excepting a plan of Toledo, not one of the larger buildings is even attempted—Cosas d’España.

The above note was written twenty-five years ago and is true now, except that the twenty-three must be now eighty-nine, where it stopped nine years ago.

Footnote 477:

Alcazar = el-Kasr, “the Castle.”

Footnote 478:

A perfect copy of this court was reproduced by Mr. Owen Jones at the Crystal Palace in 1854. Except being slightly curtailed in plan, every detail and every dimension is identical with the original.

Footnote 479:

Nothing need be said here of La Cuba and La Ziza, and other buildings in Sicily, which, though usually ascribed to the Saracens, are now ascertained to have been built by the Normans after their conquest of the island in the 11th century. They are Saracenic in style, it is true, and were probably erected by Moslem artists, but so were many churches and chapels in Spain, as mentioned above; and I am not aware of any building now extant there which can be safely ascribed to the time when the island was held by the Moslems, or was then erected by them for their own purposes. Till that is ascertained, Sicily of course does not come within the part of our subject which we are now considering.

Footnote 480:

Plate lxxxii.

Footnote 481:

For the plan and section of this mosque I was indebted to the kindness of my friend, the late M. C. Texier, who placed his MS. plans at my disposal for the purpose of being engraved for this work.

Footnote 482:

For the plan of this building I am indebted to the unpublished drawings of the late M. C. Texier.

Footnote 483:

The steps by which the transformation may have been arrived at, passing through the traditional method of constructing vaults in plaster, which is still practised in Persia, were suggested in an article contributed to the Proceedings of the R. I. B. A., 1888, vol. iv., new series.

Footnote 484:

Both the plan and view are taken from Baron Texier’s ‘Arménie et la Perse,’ which gives also several coloured plates of the mosaic decorations, from which their beauty of detail may be judged, though not the effect of the whole.

Footnote 485:

The earliest attempt in this direction that I am acquainted with is the great portal of the palace at Mashita (Woodcut No. 268).

Footnote 486:

Texier, from whose work the illustrations are taken, ascribes the building to another Khodabendah of the Sufi dynasty, A.D. 1577-85. Our knowledge, however, of the style is sufficient to show that the monument must be 200 or 300 years older than that king; and besides, the Sufis, not being Tartars, would not build tombs anywhere, much less in Sultanieh, where they never resided.

Footnote 487:

‘Travels,’ vol. i. p. 277.

Footnote 488:

Ker Porter’s ‘Travels,’ vol. i. p. 432 et seq. I cannot help suspecting that there is some mistake about these dimensions—they seem excessive. The Piazza of St. Mark’s at Venice, which resembles it more than any other area, is only 560 ft. long, with a mean breadth of about 250 ft. Probably 1500 feet by 500.

Footnote 489:

‘Views of monuments in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan.’ 25 plates, folio. London, 1844.

Footnote 490:

‘Incidents of Travel in Central America and Yucatan,’ by J. L. Stephens. 1st and 2nd series, 4 vols. 8vo. Murray, 1841, 1843.

Footnote 491:

The evidence collected by the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, ‘Voyage de Tehuantepec,’ seems, if it can be depended upon, to confirm this idea.

Footnote 492:

Ausland, 1845, Nos. 165, 168.

Footnote 493:

D’Eichthal, ‘Revue Archæologique,’ vol. x. 1864, p. 188, and following numbers.

Footnote 494:

Sir Stamford Raffles’s ‘History of Java,’ vol. ii. p. 51.

Footnote 495:

‘Anahuac,’ by Edward B. Tylor, 1861; pp. 188, 194.

Footnote 496:

The plate published by Humboldt, representing one of the bas-reliefs, is so incorrect as to be absolutely worthless.

Footnote 497:

There is a celebrated bas-relief on the back wall of a small temple at Palenque, representing a man offering a child to an emblem very like a Christian cross. It is represented in the first series of the ‘Incidents of Travel,’ vol. ii. p. 344. None of the sculptures have given rise to such various interpretations; but nothing would surprise me less than if it turned out to be a native mode of representing a Christian baptism, and was therefore subsequent to the conquest.

Footnote 498:

Since the first edition of this work was published, a folio work has appeared in Paris, entitled ‘Les Ruines de Palenque,’ illustrated by plates, made under the superintendence of M. de Waldeck, with text by the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg. The text is certainly not to be trusted. The plates add little to what we learn from Catherwood’s drawings, and I do not feel sure how far that little is to be depended upon.

In so far as they go they confirm the idea of the famous cross bas-relief being of Christian origin.

Footnote 499:

It is only fair to state that Mr. Markham (Journal Roy. Geo. Soc., vol. xli. p. 307) denies the Aymara origin of the Tia Huanacu ruins, and ascribes them to the Incas, and consequently disputes the distinction pointed out above. The truth seems to be that, until we get more photographs or detailed drawings, all conclusions regarding Peruvian architecture must be considered as more or less hypothetical.

Footnote 500:

For the principal part of this information I am indebted to Mr. William Bollaert and the photographs of the Messrs. Helsby, of Liverpool, and also to a paper on the Aymara Indians, by Dr. David Forbes, communicated to the Ethnological Society of London in June 1870.

Transcriber’s Notes

This book often uses inconsistent hyphenation and spelling, particularly with respect to accents. These were left as printed unless the author showed a clear preference for one form.

Some presumed printer’s errors have been corrected, including normalizing punctuation. Page number references and entries in the Table of Contents and in the Index were corrected where errors were found. Several instances of area being given in ft. were changed to sq. ft. and feet to square feet. The marker for footnote 483 was missing and so it's placement was assumed.

Further corrections are listed below with the original text (top) and the corrected text (bottom).