w m>c—) fy* A/ft/ t/j> » REMARKS ON THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES, ESPECIALLY OF ITALY. By R. WILLIS, M.A., F.R.S., &c. LATE FELLOW OF CA1US COLLEGE. CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED AT THE PITT PRESS, BY JOHN SMITH, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY: FOR J. & J. J. DEIGHTON; AND SOLD IN LONDON BY MESSRS LONGMAN AND CO., PATERNOSTER ROW; W. PICKERING, CHANCERY LANE; AND J. WEALE, 59, HIGH HOLBORN. M.DCCC.XXXV. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 http://archive.org/details/remarksonarchiteOOwill E PREFAC The original observations from which the following pages have been compiled, were made during a rapid tour through France, Italy, and part of Germany, in 1832-3. Two things par- ticularly attracted my attention during the jour- ney—the undeserved neglect with which the Italian Gothic had been treated, and the influence of locality upon each style of the Middle Age Architecture. I was soon led to suspect that this Architecture was susceptible of much more extended generalizations in its principles than had hitherto been attempted, and I have ven- tured to point out the road to some of the most obvious. Amongst other objects I was naturally led to search for evidence that would throw light upon the origin of the pointed arch. There is a fascinating simplicity about that theory which would derive it from the requirements of vaulting, that makes one wish to find it true ; but I am sorry to say, that notwithstanding the favourable a iv PREFACE. prepossessions with which I set out, I have been compelled to dissent from this ingenious hypo- thesis. It appeared from an examination of buildings belonging to the period of the intro- duction of this arch, that it was only one of a great number of new forms then introduced into architecture, such as trefoils and ogees, as I have exemplified in the fifth Chapter. A theory therefore that only accounts for one of these must be imperfect; but this is not the only weak point about the one in question, for I have shewn in the seventh Chapter, that so far from the pointed arch being necessary to enable a parallelogram to be vaulted, it ap- pears that architecture was already in possession of several methods of performing this, which were not even superseded by the introduction of that form, but continued in use to the latest period of the Middle Ages. If this theory must be rejected, it may be asked what other is to be substituted. I do not believe that we have sufficient data to deter- mine the question, but as so many observers in all countries are occupied in the collection and publication of examples, this deficiency is daily diminishing; in the mean time I am inclined to think the balance of evidence in ; PREFACE. V favour of the Saracenic origin of these forms, all of which appear to have been used by them and it is remarkable too, that both the trefoils and ogees are worked in the Arabian manner, on their first appearance, of which some examples appear in PI. viii. But it has been well remarked by the author of the Architectural Notes on German Churches, that the pointed arch is but one among a vast number of peculiarities which, taken altogether, make up the pointed style; and I have endea- voured to push this argument still farther, by shewing that these peculiarities were in all pro- bability the invention of different countries and ages, and that they were combined in various ways together, before they finally arranged them- selves in that happy order which produced the Complete Gothic. For making comparisons between one style and another, and for facilitating the rapid and correct observation of new examples, it is necessary that the connection and distribution of the parts should be well understood ; I flatter myself that the strong distinction I have drawn between the Decorative and Mechanical structures of buildings, will be found of great assistance in this respect: vi PREFACE. and whatever may be thought of the attempt to deduce so much of the system of Middle Age Architecture from the compound arch, I trust that it will at least be conceded, that these styles lend themselves with a singular facility to this mode of analysis, and that it is therefore capable of forming the basis of a ready scheme of nomenclature and description. 1 have been tempted to follow the history and treatment of many of the members of Gothic architecture even into the latest periods of the Cisalpine* styles, as well as those of Italy. I have done this partly to elucidate my own views of the subject, by applying them to objects whose forms are more familiar to my readers than those of the Italian Gothic; and partly, as I am not aware that so extensive a comparison of European styles has ever been made, I hoped that the attempt, even from my own imperfect data, might induce observers with better oppor- tunities to complete the plan. The plates that accompany this volume are selected from among a great number of similar * I have inadvertently used this epithet in a sense directly opposed to that in which it is employed by our best writers, who retain its classical interpretation, expressing the Italian side of the Alps. PRE F AC E. vii examples in my own sketch-book, with the ex- ception of the three Augsburg windows in PL xii., which I found correctly drawn to my hand, in a sheet which I purchased at that place, I only regret that the necessity of reducing the figures to a much smaller scale than the originals, has considerably impaired their distinctness, but I hope not so much as to prevent them from shewing the connection and arrangement of parts, which it is a main object of these Remarks to illustrate. Downing College, Jan. \, 1835. ERRATA. PAGE LINE ERROR. CORRECTION. 46 6 each foil the central foil trefoliatcd aad the rest 52 10 from bottom e I 107 14 a b cd TABLE OP CONTENTS. PAGE Preface iii Chap. I. Introduction i 1 II. On Mechanical and Decorative Construction Id III. Imposts 28 IV. Shafts 34 V. Foliation 40 VI. Tracery 49 VII. Vaulting and parts dependent on it 67 Sect. 1. General Arrangement and form of Vaults 67 2. Ribs and Rib Vaulting 79 3. Vaulting Systems and Piers 86 4. Pier Archways 105 5. Triforium and Clerestory 109 VIII. Doorways 113 IX. General Arrangement and Decoration 130 Sect. 1. Proportions and Plan 130 2. Exterior Decoration 140 3. Towers 144 X. Concluding Summary 151 Appendix (A). List of the principal Buildings of the Middle Ages in Italy 101 I. Venetian Lombardy, Parma and Modena 102 II. Tuscany with Genoa and Massa 168 III. States of the Church 174 IV. Kingdom of Naples 182 V. Sicily 184 Appendix (B). Dimensions of the principal Italian Campaniles 186 ——— (C). List of illustrated Works on the Middle Age Architec- ture in Italy 187 Description of the Plates, with some additional Remarks 189 Bases 190 String Mouldings 191 Capitals 19o Characteristic Ornaments 196 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. The Architecture of the Middle Ages in Italy has too often been treated with contempt, as if it were merely a debased Gothic, a bad and nnsuccessful imitation of a barbarous style, possessing in itself no claims to originality, no peculiar character, no share in the successive mutations from which the complete Gothic was derived. That language like this should have been applied by the first Italian advocates of the classical style, to the buildings they were attempting to depreciate, is not surprising; and they included in their condemnation the whole of the then existing European specimens of ar- chitecture; but now that the beauties of that architecture are appreciated, and such enthusi- astic attempts made to investigate its history and its principles, it becomes necessary to ex- amine well every country into which it pene- trated, before such investigation can be pro- nounced complete, and Italy must come in for its share. Now, although Gothic architecture cannot be said to have flourished in Italy at any time, A 2 or to have produced there specimens of beauty and grandeur at all comparable with those which arose under its influence on our own side of the Alps, yet it by no means follows that Italian Gothic is to be neglected. When principles are to be recovered by the examination of examples alone, which is the case with Middle Age architecture, of which no pre- cepts are preserved, the greater number of ex- amples that can be compared, the better; and we are by no means to confine ourselves to the most excellent, for we may often detect the rules of successful practice by comparing the at- tempts of unskilful artists, or the experiments of experienced ones, with those specimens in which the desired effect has been obtained in the highest degree. In this point of view, the edifices of Italy possess a peculiar interest, as they appear to have been the result of a con- tinual struggle between two principles, carried on by artists of high ability. There is in fact, no genuine Gothic build- ing in Italy ; that style which, with an uni- formity disturbed only by slight local vari- ations, spread itself over Germany, France, Britain, Spain and the Netherlands, was never practised there, for her artists, always so pre- eminent in sculpture and painting as to attract foreigners to their schools, appear to have been emboldened by that pre-eminence to attempt 3 originality in architecture ; and never losing sight of the classical structures, they hoped to succeed in giving their proportions and beauty to buildings formed with pointed arches, and other features either borrowed from the practice of their neighbours or invented by themselves.