FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193  
194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   >>   >|  
In them a clear shaft of at least sixty, it may be eighty feet, carries a flat head of boughs, each in itself a tree. In such a grove, I thought, the heathen Gaul, even the heathen Frank, worshipped beneath "trees of God." Such trees, I thought, centuries after, inspired the genius of every builder of Gothic aisles and roofs. Thus, at least, we can explain that rigidity, which Mr. Ruskin tells us, "is a special element of Gothic architecture. Greek and Egyptian buildings," he says--and I should have added, Roman building also, in proportion to their age, i.e. to the amount of the Roman elements in them--"stand for the most part by their own weight and mass, one stone passively incumbent on another: but in the Gothic vaults and traceries there is a stiffness analogous to that of the bones of a limb, or fibres of a tree; an elastic tension and communication of force from part to part; and also a studious expression of this throughout every part of the building." In a word, Gothic vaulting and tracery have been studiously made like to boughs of trees. Were those boughs present to the mind of the architect? Or is the coincidence merely fortuitous? You know already how I should answer. The cusped arch, too, was it actually not intended to imitate vegetation? Mr. Ruskin seems to think so. He says that it is merely the special application to the arch of the great ornamental system of foliation, which, "whether simple as in the cusped arch, or complicated as in tracery, arose out of the love of leafage. Not that the form of the arch is intended to imitate a leaf, "but to be invested with the same characters of beauty which the designer had discovered in the leaf." Now I differ from Mr. Ruskin with extreme hesitation. I agree that the cusped arch is not meant to imitate a leaf. I think with Mr. Ruskin, that it was probably first adopted on account of its superior strength; and that it afterwards took the form of a bough. But I cannot as yet believe that it was not at last intended to imitate a bough; a bough of a very common form, and one in which "active rigidity" is peculiarly shown. I mean a bough which has forked. If the lower fork has died off, for want of light, we obtain something like the simply cusped arch. If it be still living- -but short and stunted in comparison with the higher fork--we obtain, it seems to me, something like the foliated cusp; both likenesses being near enough to those of common
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193  
194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Gothic

 

cusped

 
imitate
 

Ruskin

 

intended

 

boughs

 

common

 
special
 

tracery

 

building


obtain

 

heathen

 

rigidity

 
thought
 
stunted
 

comparison

 

simple

 
complicated
 

leafage

 

living


invested
 

ornamental

 
likenesses
 

vegetation

 

higher

 

system

 

application

 

foliated

 

foliation

 
forked

peculiarly

 

active

 

strength

 
differ
 

simply

 
extreme
 
discovered
 

beauty

 

designer

 
hesitation

account

 
superior
 
adopted
 

characters

 

expression

 

explain

 

element

 
genius
 
builder
 

aisles