The Seven Periods of English Architecture Part 1

The Seven Periods of English Architecture.

by Edmund Sharpe.

PREFACE.

"We have been so long accustomed to speak of our National Architecture in the terms, and according to the cla.s.sification bequeathed to us by Mr. Rickman, and those terms and that cla.s.sification are so well understood and have been so universally adopted, that any proposal to supersede the one, or to modify the other, requires somewhat more than a mere apology. To disturb a Nomenclature of long standing, to set aside terms in familiar use, and to set up others in their place which are strange, and therefore at first unintelligible, involves an interruption of that facility with which we are accustomed to communicate with one another on any given subject, that is only to be justified by reasons of a cogent and satisfactory nature.

"The sufficiency of Mr. Rickman's Nomenclature and Divisions, and their suitableness at the time and for the purpose for which they were made, are best evidenced by the fact that, although the attempts to supersede them have been both numerous and persevering, they have remained for nearly half a century the princ.i.p.al guide to the Architectural Student; and Mr. Rickman's 'Attempt to discriminate the Styles of Architecture in England,' is still the Text-book from which the greater part of the popular works of the present day have been compiled.

"In referring, however, to these attempts to supersede Mr. Rickman's system, it is proper to remark that one observation applies to the whole of them;--although they propose to change the Nomenclature of his different styles, or to subdivide them, his main division of English Architecture into four great Periods or Styles, is adopted by all, and still remains undisturbed. No point, therefore, has been hitherto proposed to be gained by these alterations, beyond a change of name; and this may be taken as a sufficient reason why none of these attempts have been successful: men are not willing to unlearn a term with which they are familiar, however inappropriate, in order to learn another, which, after all, means the same thing.

"Although, however, Mr. Rickman's simple division of Church Architecture into four Periods, or Styles, may perhaps have been the one best suited to his time, and to the elementary state of the knowledge of the subject possessed by the best informed Archaeologists of his day, it may with propriety be questioned how far such a division is suited to the exigencies of writers of the present day, or to the present advanced tastes of knowledge on the subject.

"Simplicity was doubtless the object Mr. Rickman had in view in his division of English Architecture into four Styles only. This is a recommendation, however, which can hardly be said to hold good at the present day: it behoves us to consider well, perhaps more especially at the present moment, whether Mr. Rickman's system fulfils all the conditions essential to one calculated for popular and universal use; and whether we should therefore seek to confirm and to perpetuate it, or whether the time has not arrived for the adoption of a more detailed and accurate division of the long and n.o.ble series of buildings which contain the History of our National Architecture from the Heptarchy to the Reformation."[A]

No one can enter into an inquiry of this kind without eventually coming to the conclusion that there are two large cla.s.ses of Buildings containing distinctive marks of peculiarity of character, which find no place in Mr. Rickman's system, but which nevertheless, from the number and importance of their examples, are pre-eminently ent.i.tled to separate cla.s.sification. These two cla.s.ses are those to which the buildings enumerated at pp. 24, and 31, 32 respectively belong, and which cannot, without circ.u.mlocution, be described in any of the terms prescribed by Mr. Rickman.

As regards the earlier of these two cla.s.ses, the extent to which these distinctive peculiarities of detail exist, will perhaps at first scarcely be credited, and proofs of a much more extensive and satisfactory character than are contained in the following pages, or could be looked for in an elementary work of this nature, will probably be required before its t.i.tle to separate cla.s.sification will be universally conceded.

As regards the later of these cla.s.ses, the same difficulty does not exist. Mr. Rickman divided the whole of the buildings of Pointed Architecture into three Styles or Cla.s.ses, which he denominated "Early English," "Decorated," "Perpendicular." The t.i.tles of the two last he professed to derive from the character of their windows, conceiving, no doubt justly, that no part of a Gothic building exhibits peculiarities of Style in so prominent and characteristic a manner as its windows. In strict accordance with this rule, which may be a.s.sumed to be a correct and valuable one, it has already been shown,[B] that had Mr. Rickman gone a step further and cla.s.sed the whole of the buildings of Pointed Architecture according to the forms of their Windows under _four_ heads, instead of _three_, he would have obtained a cla.s.sification equally simple, but more intelligible and convenient; he would have obviated much that is confused and indefinite, and therefore perplexing to the Architectural Student, in his description of buildings which belong to the cla.s.s to which we are now referring, and would have enabled us to compare the buildings of our own Country with those of corresponding character, and nearly contemporaneous date on the Continent, in a manner that would have established an a.n.a.logy between them, which, according to the present cla.s.sification, has no apparent existence.

The inability to describe, or speak of any of the buildings belonging to either of these two cla.s.ses, including some of the finest in the kingdom, otherwise than as examples of an intermediate and anomalous character, exhibiting the peculiarities partly of one style and partly of another, but belonging specifically to neither, must be admitted to be a serious defect in all hitherto recognised systems of Architectural Nomenclature; and there are probably few Architecturalists who have not frequently felt the inconvenience arising from the want of more explicit and definite terms than at present exist, by means of which to describe the buildings of these two cla.s.ses.

It is to remedy these defects, and to provide for this want, that the following division of the History of our National Architecture into Seven Periods instead of Four, is now formally proposed, under the belief that some such Division as this, by whatever terms it may be characterised, will sooner or later force itself into universal adoption. With respect to the terms themselves it would be unreasonable to expect the same unanimity; the following considerations, however, would seem to bring their selection within narrow limits. It would appear, in the first place, unadvisable to designate any of the later Periods, except the last, by any of the terms. .h.i.therto in use, as tending probably to confusion and misapprehension, from the difficulty of limiting their signification to the extent proposed in the minds of those who have been accustomed to use them in a more ample sense: and to retain the last, if the others be abandoned, and a more appropriate or a.n.a.logous term can be found, appears to be still less desirable.

At the same time it is much to be desired that the terms we use should be not altogether strange, and, if possible, self-explanatory. These two conditions are such as to render it difficult to find terms such as to be in all respects perfectly satisfactory; and perhaps no system of Nomenclature could be found so perfect as to be entirely free from objection.

The reasons which have caused the adoption of the terms made use of in the following system, are fully given in their proper place, and it only remains for the Author to notice that the terms "Curvilinear" and "Rectilinear" were first proposed by a writer in the "British Critic,"

some years ago, as a subst.i.tute for Mr. Rickman's terms "Decorated" and "Perpendicular;" and in a sense, therefore, as regards the former of these terms, essentially different from that in which it is here proposed to be applied. The rest must be more or less familiar to all who have been of late engaged in the study.

The Author desires to take this opportunity of acknowledging his obligations to Mr. T. Austin, by whom all the subjects, with one exception, have been measured and drawn from the buildings themselves; as well as to Mr. G. B. Smith, by whom the whole have been engraved on steel, for the accuracy and appearance of the princ.i.p.al ill.u.s.trations.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote A: The preceding paragraphs, distinguished by inverted commas, formed part of the introduction to a Paper "On the Geometrical Period of English Church Architecture," read by the Author at the Lincoln meeting of the Archaeological Inst.i.tute in July 1848.]

[Footnote B: "Treatise on the Rise and Progress of Window Tracery," by E. Sharpe, M.A. Van Voorst, London.]

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION.

To present at a single glance a comprehensive view of the History of English Church Architecture from the Heptarchy to the Reformation, and to do this in a manner, which, without taxing too seriously the memory of the student, may enable him to fix in his mind the limits, and the general outline of the inquiry he is about to enter upon, is the object of the present treatise.

Instead therefore of entering, as is usual in elementary works of this nature, into a detailed account of all the parts of an Ecclesiastical structure, a certain portion only of such a building has for this purpose been selected, and so exhibited in the garb in which it appeared at successive intervals of time, as to present to the reader a means of comparison that will enable him readily to apprehend the gradual change of form through which it pa.s.sed from the Eleventh to the Sixteenth Centuries, and at once to recognise the leading characteristics of the several Periods into which it is here proposed to divide the History of our National Architecture. Having thus fixed these leading characteristics in his mind, he will then be in a condition to follow us hereafter, if he pleases, into the detail of the whole subject, and to become familiar with those niceties of distinction, the detection of which--escaping, as they do, the eye of the general observer--contributes so materially to the enjoyment of the study, and a perfect acquaintance with which is so absolutely essential to a correct understanding of the true History of the Art.

That this mode of approaching the study of this subject is a convenient one, will probably be admitted by those who may remember the difficulties they encountered, in their early attempts to acquire a general conception of the scheme of the History of Church Architecture, as given in most of the manuals now in use; and the complexity of detail in which they found themselves immediately involved on the very threshold of their inquiry.

It has been the practice in most elementary works on Church Architecture to derive the ill.u.s.trations of the subject, indifferently from the smaller and the larger buildings of the Kingdom; and by implication to a.s.sign an equal authority to both. It will be readily admitted, however, that the History of an Art is to be gathered from its princ.i.p.al Monuments, and not from those the design or execution of which may have been entrusted to other than the ablest masters of the Period: in the choice, therefore, of the examples which have been selected to ill.u.s.trate the series of changes which are described in the following pages, reference has been made princ.i.p.ally to the great Cathedral, Abbey, and Collegiate Churches of the Kingdom, and occasionally only to some of the larger Parish Churches whose size or importance would seem to bring them under the above denomination.

CHAPTER II.

CLa.s.sIFICATION.

Church Architecture in England, from its earliest existence down to the Sixteenth Century, was in a state of constant progress, or transition, and this progress appears to have been carried on, with certain exceptions in different parts of the country, very nearly simultaneously. It follows from this circ.u.mstance, first, That it is impossible to divide our National Architecture correctly into any number of distinct _Orders_ or _Styles_; and secondly, That any Division of its History into a given number of _Periods_, must necessarily be an arbitrary one. It is nevertheless absolutely essential for the purpose of conveniently describing the long series of n.o.ble monuments which remain to us, that we should adopt some system of chronological arrangement, which may enable us to group, and to cla.s.sify them in a distinct and intelligible manner: and although no broad lines of demarcation in this connected series are discernible--so gradual was the change--yet so rapid and so complete was it also, that a period of fifty years did not elapse without a material alteration in the form and fashion of every detail of a building.

Now it will be readily conceived that, even in the midst of this continual change, certain favourite forms would remain in use longer than others; and that this circ.u.mstance may possibly afford us the opportunity of which we are in search; and enable us in the adoption of any such arbitrary Division so to define and to characterise the Architecture of its different Periods, as to render this Historical Survey and our future descriptions sufficiently intelligible.

One princ.i.p.al Division of Church Architecture has been recognised and adopted by all who have studied and written on the subject; that, namely, which separates Ecclesiastical Buildings into two cla.s.ses, in the first or earlier of which the _circular arch_ was exclusively employed; and in the second or later, the _pointed arch_ alone was used. To the former of these two Cla.s.ses, the term ROMANESQUE has been given, and to the latter, the term GOTHIC.

This division is so simple, and at the same time so strongly marked, that without entering into a discussion as to the value or propriety of the terms themselves, and contenting ourselves with the fact that they are already in general use, we can have little hesitation in adopting this primary division as the groundwork of our system.

At the same time, it is manifest, that, for purposes of description, it is not sufficiently minute; and that a further subdivision is necessary: it is also clear, that it excludes a large cla.s.s of buildings that were erected during the period which intervened between the first appearance of the pointed arch, and the final disappearance of the circular arch.

As regards the buildings of the Romanesque Period, no subdivision of them can be more satisfactory than that which has already been for some time in use, and which divides them into those which were built before and after the Conquest, and designates them accordingly SAXON and NORMAN.

As regards the buildings of that Intermediate Period just mentioned, to none can the term TRANSITIONAL so aptly be applied as to those erected under influences created by that remarkable contest between two great antagonistic principles, which, after having been carried on for a period of nearly fifty years, terminated in a complete revolution in the style of building at the end of the Twelfth Century.

Lastly, as regards the Gothic Period, no subdivision of it appears to be so natural and convenient, as that which is suggested by the four princ.i.p.al changes of form through which the Window pa.s.sed from the Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Centuries.

These changes have been fully ill.u.s.trated by the author in a former work,[C] and will be therefore only briefly recapitulated here.

For half a century or more, after the disappearance of the circular arch, the window appeared under a form, which from its general resemblance to a _lancet_, in its length, breadth, and princ.i.p.al proportions, rather than from any uniform acuteness in the shape of its head, led to the universal application of that term to all the windows of this Period. This observation applies equally to the window whether used singly, or in groups of two, three, five, or seven; and equally also to the later as to the earlier examples of this Period.

[Ill.u.s.tration: TEMPLE CHURCH.]

It is proposed therefore to denominate this the LANCET PERIOD of Gothic Architecture.

Towards the close of this Period the practice of combining a plurality of Lancets, under one arch, or hood-moulding--and of piercing the solid s.p.a.ces that intervened between the heads of these lancets and the underside of this arch in various ornamental ways, became common; by the adoption of which, a group of several lancets was converted into a single window of several lights. Out of this practice arose a novel and beautiful discovery; this was the invention of _Tracery_.

[Ill.u.s.tration: CROFT.]

For nearly three-quarters of a century after its introduction the Tracery of windows contained forms in which that simplest of all Geometrical figures, the _Circle_, was princ.i.p.ally conspicuous: and although, in the latter part of this Period, the Circle does not obtain the same prominent place, in the centre of the window-head, and as the princ.i.p.al feature of the design, that is generally allotted to it in the earlier examples, yet the important part that it bears in the construction of the design of even the whole of these later examples, fully justifies the application of the term, already pretty generally in use, to this cla.s.s of windows; and ent.i.tles us to call this Period after that figure, and "par excellence," the GEOMETRICAL PERIOD.

[Ill.u.s.tration: HOWDEN.]

At the close of this Period a feature began to make its way into the subordinate parts of the tracery, which had already shown itself for some time previously in the mouldings, and which eventually exercised a most important influence on the Architecture of the next half-century.