<h3><SPAN name="chap_9"></SPAN>CHAPTER IX.</h3>
<h5>THE CAPITAL.</h5>
<p><span class="scs">I.</span> <span class="sc">The</span> reader will remember that in <SPAN href="#chap_7">Chap. VII.</SPAN> <span class="scs">V.</span> it
was said that the cornice of the wall, being cut to pieces and
gathered together, formed the capital of the column. We
have now to follow it in its transformation.</p>
<p>We must, of course, take our simplest form or root of cornices
(<i>a</i>, in <SPAN href="#fig_5">Fig. V.</SPAN>, above). We will take X and Y there, and
we must necessarily gather them together as we did Xb and Yb
in <SPAN href="#chap_7">Chap. VII.</SPAN> Look back to the tenth paragraph of <SPAN href="#chap_7">Chap.
VII.</SPAN>, read or glance it over again, substitute X and Y for Xb
and Yb, read capital for base, and, as we said that the capital
was the hand of the pillar, while the base was its foot, read
also fingers for toes; and as you look to the plate, <SPAN href="#fig_12">Fig. XII.</SPAN>,
turn it upside down. Then <i>h</i>, in <SPAN href="#fig_12">Fig. XII.</SPAN>, becomes now your
best general form of block capital, as before of block base.</p>
<p><span class="scs">II.</span> You will thus have a perfect idea of the analogies
between base and capital; our farther inquiry is into their
differences. You cannot but have noticed that when <SPAN href="#fig_12">Fig. XII.</SPAN>
is turned upside down, the square stone (Y) looks too heavy
for the supporting stone (X); and that in the profile of cornice
(<i>a</i> of <SPAN href="#fig_5">Fig. V.</SPAN>) the proportions are altogether different. You
will feel the fitness of this in an instant when you consider
that the principal function of the sloping part in <SPAN href="#fig_12">Fig. XII.</SPAN> is
as a prop to the pillar to keep it from <i>slipping aside</i>; but the
function of the sloping stone in the cornice and capital is to
<i>carry weight above</i>. The thrust of the slope in the one case
should therefore be lateral, in the other upwards.</p>
<p><span class="scs">III.</span> We will, therefore, take the two figures, <i>e</i> and <i>h</i> of
<SPAN href="#fig_12">Fig. XII.</SPAN>, and make this change in them as we reverse them,
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page106"></SPAN>106</span>
using now the exact profile of the cornice <i>a</i>,—the father of
cornices; and we shall thus have <i>a</i> and <i>b</i>, <SPAN href="#fig_19">Fig. XIX.</SPAN></p>
<table class="nobctr" style="clear: both; " summary="Illustration">
<tr>
<td class="caption1">Fig. XIX.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="figcenter2">
<SPAN name="fig_19"><ANTIMG src="images/img106.jpg" width-obs="650" height-obs="351" alt="Fig. XIX." title="Fig. XIX." /></SPAN></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>Both of these are
sufficiently ugly,
the reader thinks;
so do I; but we
will mend them before
we have done
with them: that at
<i>a</i> is assuredly the
ugliest,—like a tile
on a flower-pot. It
is, nevertheless, the
father of capitals;
being the simplest
condition of the
gathered father of
cornices. But it is
to be observed that
the diameter of the
shaft here is arbitrarily
assumed to
be small, in order
more clearly to
show the general
relations of the sloping
stone to the
shaft and upper
stone; and this
smallness of the
shaft diameter is inconsistent with the serviceableness and beauty
of the arrangement at <i>a</i>, if it were to be realised (as we shall
see presently); but it is not inconsistent with its central character,
as the representative of every species of possible capital;
nor is its tile and flower-pot look to be regretted, as it may
remind the reader of the reported origin of the Corinthian
capital. The stones of the cornice, hitherto called X and Y,
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page107"></SPAN>107</span>
receive, now that they form the capital, each a separate name;
the sloping stone is called the Bell of the capital, and that laid
above it, the Abacus. Abacus means a board or tile: I wish
there were an English word for it, but I fear there is no substitution
possible, the term having been long fixed, and the reader
will find it convenient to familiarise himself with the Latin
one.</p>
<p><span class="scs">IV.</span> The form of base, <i>e</i> of <SPAN href="#fig_12">Fig. XII.</SPAN>, which corresponds
to this first form of capital, <i>a,</i> was said to be objectionable only
because it <i>looked</i> insecure; and the spurs were added as a kind
of pledge of stability to the eye. But evidently the projecting
corners of the abacus at <i>a</i>, <SPAN href="#fig_19">Fig. XIX.</SPAN>, are <i>actually</i> insecure;
they may break off, if great weight be laid upon them. This
is the chief reason of the ugliness of the form; and the spurs
in <i>b</i> are now no mere pledges of apparent stability, but have
very serious practical use in supporting the angle of the abacus.
If, even with the added spur, the support seems insufficient,
we may fill up the crannies between the spurs and the bell,
and we have the form <i>c</i>.</p>
<p>Thus <i>a</i>, though the germ and type of capitals, is itself
(except under some peculiar conditions) both ugly and insecure;
<i>b</i> is the first type of capitals which carry light weight; <i>c</i>, of
capitals which carry excessive weight.</p>
<p><span class="scs">V.</span> I fear, however, the reader may think he is going
slightly too fast, and may not like having the capital forced
upon him out of the cornice; but would prefer inventing a
capital for the shaft itself, without reference to the cornice at
all. We will do so then; though we shall come to the same
result.</p>
<p>The shaft, it will be remembered, has to sustain the same
weight as the long piece of wall which was concentrated into
the shaft; it is enabled to do this both by its better form and
better knit materials; and it can carry a greater weight than
the space at the top of it is adapted to receive. The first point,
therefore, is to expand this space as far as possible, and that in
a form more convenient than the circle for the adjustment of
the stones above. In general the square is a more convenient
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page108"></SPAN>108</span>
form than any other; but the hexagon or octagon is sometimes
better fitted for masses of work which divide in six or eight
directions. Then our first impulse would be to put a square
or hexagonal stone on the top of the
shaft, projecting as far beyond it as
might be safely ventured; as at <i>a</i>, <SPAN href="#fig_20">Fig.
XX.</SPAN> This is the abacus. Our next idea
would be to put a conical shaped stone
beneath this abacus, to support its outer
edge, as at <i>b</i>. This is the bell.</p>
<table style="float: left; width: auto;" summary="Illustration">
<tr>
<td class="caption1">Fig. XX.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="figleft2">
<SPAN name="fig_20"><ANTIMG src="images/img108.jpg" width-obs="250" height-obs="455" alt="Fig. XX." title="Fig. XX." /></SPAN></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><span class="scs">VI.</span> Now the entire treatment of the
capital depends simply on the manner in
which this bell-stone is prepared for fitting
the shaft below and the abacus above.
Placed as at <i>a</i>, in <SPAN href="#fig_19">Fig. XIX.</SPAN>, it gives us
the simplest of possible forms; with the
spurs added, as at <i>b</i>, it gives the germ of
the richest and most elaborate forms: but
there are two modes of treatment more dexterous than the one,
and less elaborate than the other, which are of the highest
possible importance,—modes in which the bell is brought to its
proper form by truncation.</p>
<p><span class="scs">VII.</span> Let <i>d</i> and <i>f</i>, <SPAN href="#fig_19">Fig. XIX.</SPAN>, be two bell-stones; <i>d</i> is part
of a cone (a sugar-loaf upside down, with its point cut off); <i>f</i>
part of a four-sided pyramid. Then, assuming the abacus to
be square, <i>d</i> will already fit the shaft, but has to be chiselled
to fit the abacus; <i>f</i> will already fit the abacus, but has to be
chiselled to fit the shaft.</p>
<p>From the broad end of <i>d</i> chop or chisel off, in four vertical
planes, as much as will leave its head an exact square. The
vertical cuttings will form curves on the sides of the cone
(curves of a curious kind, which the reader need not be troubled
to examine), and we shall have the form at <i>e</i>, which is the root
of the greater number of Norman capitals.</p>
<p>From <i>f</i> cut off the angles, beginning at the corners of the
square and widening the truncation downwards, so as to give
the form at <i>g</i>, where the base of the bell is an octagon, and its
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page109"></SPAN>109</span>
top remains a square. A very slight rounding away of the
angles of the octagon at the base of <i>g</i> will enable it to fit the
circular shaft closely enough for all practical purposes, and this
form, at <i>g</i>, is the root of nearly all Lombardic capitals.</p>
<p>If, instead of a square, the head of the bell were hexagonal
or octagonal, the operation of cutting would be the same on
each angle; but there would be produced, of course, six or
eight curves on the sides of <i>e</i>, and twelve or sixteen sides to
the base of <i>g</i>.</p>
<table style="float: right; width: auto;" summary="Illustration">
<tr>
<td class="caption1">Fig. XXI.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="figright2">
<SPAN name="fig_21"><ANTIMG src="images/img109.jpg" width-obs="200" height-obs="186" alt="Fig. XXI." title="Fig. XXI." /></SPAN></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><span class="scs">VIII.</span> The truncations in <i>e</i> and <i>g</i> may of course be executed
on concave or convex forms of <i>d</i> and <i>f</i>; but <i>e</i> is usually
worked on a straight-sided bell, and the
truncation of <i>g</i> often becomes concave
while the bell remains straight; for this
simple reason,—that the sharp points at the
angles of <i>g</i>, being somewhat difficult to cut,
and easily broken off, are usually avoided
by beginning the truncation a little way
down the side of the bell, and then recovering
the lost ground by a deeper cut inwards, as here, <SPAN href="#fig_21">Fig. XXI.</SPAN>
This is the actual form of the capitals of the balustrades of St.
Mark’s: it is the root of all the Byzantine Arab capitals, and
of all the most beautiful capitals in the world, whose function
is to express lightness.</p>
<p><span class="scs">IX.</span> We have hitherto proceeded entirely on the assumption
that the form of cornice which was gathered together to produce
the capital was the root of cornices, <i>a</i> of <SPAN href="#fig_5">Fig. V.</SPAN> But
this, it will be remembered, was said in <span class="scs">VI.</span> of <SPAN href="#chap_6">Chap. VI.</SPAN> to
be especially characteristic of southern work, and that in northern
and wet climates it took the form of a dripstone.</p>
<p>Accordingly, in the northern climates, the dripstone gathered
together forms a peculiar northern capital, commonly called
the Early English,<SPAN name="FnAnchor_47" href="#Footnote_47"><span class="sp">47</span></SPAN> owing to its especial use in that style.</p>
<p>There would have been no absurdity in this if shafts were
always to be exposed to the weather; but in Gothic constructions
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page110"></SPAN>110</span>
the most important shafts are in the inside of the building.
The dripstone sections of their capitals are therefore unnecessary
and ridiculous.</p>
<p><span class="scs">X.</span> They are, however, much worse than unnecessary.</p>
<table class="nobctr" style="clear: both; " summary="Illustration">
<tr>
<td class="caption1">Fig. XXII.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="figcenter2">
<SPAN name="fig_22"><ANTIMG src="images/img110.jpg" width-obs="650" height-obs="139" alt="Fig. XXII." title="Fig. XXII." /></SPAN></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>The edge of the dripstone, being undercut, has no bearing
power, and the capital fails, therefore, in
its own principal function; and besides
this, the undercut contour admits of no
distinctly visible decoration; it is, therefore,
left utterly barren, and the capital
looks as if it had been turned in a lathe.
The Early English capital has, therefore,
the three greatest faults that any design
can have: (1) it fails in its own proper
purpose, that of support; (2) it is adapted
to a purpose to which it can never be put,
that of keeping off rain; (3) it cannot be
decorated.</p>
<p>The Early English capital is, therefore,
a barbarism of triple grossness, and degrades
the style in which it is found,
otherwise very noble, to one of second-rate
order.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XI.</span> Dismissing, therefore, the Early
English capital, as deserving no place in
our system, let us reassemble in one view
the forms which have been legitimately
developed, and which are to become hereafter
subjects of decoration. To the forms
<i>a</i>, <i>b</i>, and <i>c</i>, <SPAN href="#fig_19">Fig. XIX.</SPAN>, we must add the
two simplest truncated forms <i>e</i> and <i>g</i>, <SPAN href="#fig_19">Fig.
XIX.</SPAN>, putting their abaci on them (as we
considered their contours in the bells only),
and we shall have the five forms now given in parallel perspective
in <SPAN href="#fig_22">Fig. XXII.</SPAN>, which are the roots of all good capitals
existing, or capable of existence, and whose variations,
infinite and a thousand times infinite, are all produced by
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page111"></SPAN>111</span>
introduction of various curvatures into their contours, and the
endless methods of decoration superinduced on such curvatures.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XII.</span> There is, however, a kind of variation, also infinite,
which takes place in these radical forms, before they receive
either curvature or decoration. This is the variety of proportion
borne by the different lines of the capital to each other,
and to the shafts. This is a structural question, at present to
be considered as far as is possible.</p>
<table class="nobctr" style="clear: both; " summary="Illustration">
<tr>
<td class="caption1">Fig. XXIII.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="figcenter2">
<SPAN name="fig_23"><ANTIMG src="images/img111.jpg" width-obs="500" height-obs="299" alt="Fig. XXIII." title="Fig. XXIII." /></SPAN></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><span class="scs">XIII.</span> All the five capitals (which are indeed five orders
with legitimate distinction; very different, however, from the
five orders as commonly understood) may be represented by
the same profile, a section through the sides of <i>a</i>, <i>b</i>, <i>d</i>, and <i>e</i>,
or through the angles of <i>c</i>, <SPAN href="#fig_22">Fig. XXII.</SPAN> This profile we will
put on the top of a shaft, as at A, <SPAN href="#fig_23">Fig. XXIII.</SPAN>, which shaft
we will suppose of equal diameter above and below for the
sake of greater simplicity: in this simplest condition, however,
relations of proportion exist between five quantities, any
one or any two, or any three, or any four of which may change,
irrespective of the others. These five quantities are:</p>
<p class="nomarg">1. The height of the shaft, <i>a b</i>;</p>
<p class="nomarg">2. Its diameter, <i>b c</i>;
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page112"></SPAN>112</span></p>
<p class="nomarg">3. The length of slope of bell, <i>b d</i>;</p>
<p class="nomarg">4. The inclination of this slope, or angle <i>c b d</i>;</p>
<p class="nomarg">5. The depth of abacus, <i>d e</i>.</p>
<p>For every change in any one of these quantities we have
a new proportion of capital: five infinities, supposing change
only in one quantity at a time: infinity of infinities in the sum
of possible changes.</p>
<p>It is, therefore, only possible to note the general laws of
change; every scale of pillar, and every weight laid upon it
admitting, within certain limits, a variety out of which the
architect has his choice; but yet fixing limits which the proportion
becomes ugly when it approaches, and dangerous
when it exceeds. But the inquiry into this subject is too
difficult for the general reader, and I shall content myself with
proving four laws, easily understood and generally applicable;
for proof of which if the said reader care not, he may miss the
next four paragraphs without harm.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XIV.</span> 1. <i>The more slender the shaft, the greater, proportionally,
may be the projection of the abacus.</i> For, looking
back to <SPAN href="#fig_23">Fig. XXIII.</SPAN>, let the height <i>a b</i> be fixed, the length
<i>d b</i>, the angle <i>d b c</i>, and the depth <i>d e</i>. Let the single quantity
<i>b c</i> be variable, let B be a capital and shaft which are found to
be perfectly safe in proportion to the weight they bear, and
let the weight be equally distributed over the whole of the
abacus. Then this weight may be represented by any number
of equal divisions, suppose four, as <i>l</i>, <i>m</i>, <i>n</i>, <i>r</i>, of brickwork
above, of which each division is one fourth of the whole
weight; and let this weight be placed in the most trying way
on the abacus, that is to say, let the masses <i>l</i> and <i>r</i> be detached
from <i>m</i> and <i>n</i>, and bear with their full weight on the outside of
the capital. We assume, in B, that the width of abacus <i>e f</i> is
twice as great as that of the shaft, <i>b c,</i> and on these conditions
we assume the capital to be safe.</p>
<p>But <i>b c</i> is allowed to be variable. Let it become <i>b</i><span class="su">2</span> <i>c</i><span class="su">2</span> at C,
which is a length representing about the diameter of a shaft
containing half the substance of the shaft B, and, therefore,
able to sustain not more than half the weight sustained by B.
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page113"></SPAN>113</span>
But the slope <i>b d</i> and depth <i>d e</i> remaining unchanged, we have
the capital of C, which we are to load with only half the
weight of <i>l</i>, <i>m</i>, <i>n</i>, <i>r</i>, i. e., with <i>l</i> and <i>r</i> alone. Therefore the
weight of <i>l</i> and <i>r</i>, now represented by the masses <i>l</i><span class="su">2</span>, <i>r</i><span class="su">2</span>, is distributed
over the whole of the capital. But the weight <i>r</i> was
adequately supported by the projecting piece of the first capital
<i>h f c</i>: much more is it now adequately supported by <i>i h</i>,
<i>f</i><span class="su">2</span> <i>c</i><span class="su">2</span>. Therefore, if the capital of B was safe, that of C is
more than safe. Now in B the length <i>e f</i> was only twice <i>b c</i>;
but in C, <i>e</i><span class="su">2</span> <i>f</i><span class="su">2</span> will be found more than twice that of <i>b</i><span class="su">2</span> <i>c</i><span class="su">2</span>.
Therefore, the more slender the shaft, the greater may be the
proportional excess of the abacus over its diameter.</p>
<table class="nobctr" style="clear: both; " summary="Illustration">
<tr>
<td class="caption1">Fig. XXIV.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="figcenter2">
<SPAN name="fig_24"><ANTIMG src="images/img113.jpg" width-obs="500" height-obs="147" alt="Fig. XXIV." title="Fig. XXIV." /></SPAN></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><span class="scs">XV.</span> 2. <i>The smaller the scale of the building, the greater
may be the excess of the abacus over the diameter of the shaft.</i>
This principle requires, I think, no very lengthy proof: the
reader can understand at once that the cohesion and strength
of stone which can sustain a small projecting mass, will not
sustain a vast one overhanging in the same proportion. A
bank even of loose earth, six feet high, will sometimes overhang
its base a foot or two, as you may see any day in the
gravelly banks of the lanes of Hampstead: but make the bank
of gravel, equally loose, six hundred feet high, and see if you
can get it to overhang a hundred or two! much more if there
be weight above it increased in the same proportion. Hence,
let any capital be given, whose projection is just safe, and no
more, on its existing scale; increase its proportions every way
equally, though ever so little, and it is unsafe; diminish them
equally, and it becomes safe in the exact degree of the
diminution.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page114"></SPAN>114</span></p>
<p>Let, then, the quantity <i>e d</i>, and angle <i>d b c</i>, at A of <SPAN href="#fig_23">Fig.
XXIII.</SPAN>, be invariable, and let the length <i>d b</i> vary: then we
shall have such a series of forms as may be represented by
<i>a, b, c,</i> <SPAN href="#fig_24">Fig. XXIV.</SPAN>, of which <i>a</i> is a proportion for a colossal
building, <i>b</i> for a moderately sized building, while <i>c</i> could only
be admitted on a very small scale indeed.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XVI</span>. 3. <i>The greater the excess of abacus, the steeper must
be the slope of the bell, the shaft diameter being constant.</i></p>
<p>This will evidently follow from the considerations in the
last paragraph; supposing only that, instead of the scale of
shaft and capital varying together, the scale of the capital varies
alone. For it will then still be true, that, if the projection of
the capital be just safe on a given scale,
as its excess over the shaft diameter
increases, the projection will be unsafe,
if the slope of the bell remain constant.
But it may be rendered safe by making
this slope steeper, and so increasing its
supporting power.</p>
<table style="float: left; width: auto;" summary="Illustration">
<tr>
<td class="caption1">Fig. XXV.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="figleft2">
<SPAN name="fig_25"><ANTIMG src="images/img114.jpg" width-obs="250" height-obs="518" alt="Fig. XXV." title="Fig. XXV." /></SPAN></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>Thus let the capital <i>a</i>, <SPAN href="#fig_25">Fig. XXV.</SPAN>,
be just safe. Then the capital <i>b</i>, in
which the slope is the same but the
excess greater, is unsafe. But the capital
<i>c</i>, in which, though the excess equals
that of <i>b</i>, the steepness of the supporting
slope is increased, will be as safe as
<i>b</i>, and probably as strong as <i>a</i>.<SPAN name="FnAnchor_48" href="#Footnote_48"><span class="sp">48</span></SPAN></p>
<p><span class="scs">XVII</span>. 4. <i>The steeper the slope of the bell, the thinner may
be the abacus.</i></p>
<p>The use of the abacus is eminently to equalise the pressure
over the surface of the bell, so that the weight may not by
any accident be directed exclusively upon its edges. In proportion
to the strength of these edges, this function of the
abacus is superseded, and these edges are strong in proportion
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page115"></SPAN>115</span>
to the steepness of the slope. Thus in <SPAN href="#fig_26">Fig. XXVI.</SPAN>, the bell
at <i>a</i> would carry weight safely enough without any abacus,
but that at <i>c</i> would not: it would probably
have its edges broken off. The
abacus superimposed might be on <i>a</i>
very thin, little more than formal, as at
<i>b</i>; but on <i>c</i> must be thick, as at <i>d</i>.</p>
<table style="float: right; width: auto;" summary="Illustration">
<tr>
<td class="caption1">Fig. XXVI.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="figright2">
<SPAN name="fig_26"><ANTIMG src="images/img115.jpg" width-obs="200" height-obs="222" alt="Fig. XXVI." title="Fig. XXVI." /></SPAN></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><span class="scs">XVIII</span>. These four rules are all that
are necessary for general criticism; and
observe that these are only semi-imperative,—rules
of permission, not of compulsion.
Thus Law 1 asserts that the
slender shaft <i>may</i> have greater excess of capital than the
thick shaft; but it need not, unless the architect chooses; his
thick shafts <i>must</i> have small excess, but his slender ones
need not have large. So Law 2 says, that as the building is
smaller, the excess <i>may</i> be greater; but it need not, for the
excess which is safe in the large is still safer in the small. So
Law 3 says that capitals of great excess must have steep
slopes; but it does not say that capitals of small excess may
not have steep slopes also, if we choose. And lastly, Law 4
asserts the necessity of the thick abacus for the shallow bell;
but the steep bell may have a thick abacus also.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XIX</span>. It will be found, however, that in practice some confession
of these laws will always be useful, and especially of
the two first. The eye always requires, on a slender shaft, a
more spreading capital than it does on a massy one, and a
bolder mass of capital on a small scale than on a large. And,
in the application of the first rule, it is to be noted that a shaft
becomes slender either by diminution of diameter or increase
of height; that either mode of change presupposes the weight
above it diminished, and requires an expansion of abacus. I
know no mode of spoiling a noble building more frequent in
actual practice than the imposition of flat and slightly expanded
capitals on tall shafts.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XX</span>. The reader must observe, also, that, in the demonstration
of the four laws, I always assumed the weight above to be
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page116"></SPAN>116</span>
given. By the alteration of this weight, therefore, the architect
has it in his power to relieve, and therefore alter, the forms
of his capitals. By its various distribution on their centres or
edges, the slope of their bells and thickness of abaci will be
affected also; so that he has countless expedients at his command
for the various treatment of his design. He can divide
his weights among more shafts; he can throw them in different
places and different directions on the abaci; he can alter slope
of bells or diameter of shafts; he can use spurred or plain bells,
thin or thick abaci; and all these changes admitting of infinity
in their degrees, and infinity a thousand times told in their
relations: and all this without reference to decoration, merely
with the five forms of block capital!</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXI</span>. In the harmony of these arrangements, in their fitness,
unity, and accuracy, lies the true proportion of every
building,—proportion utterly endless in its infinities of change,
with unchanged beauty. And yet this connexion of the frame
of their building into one harmony has, I believe, never been
so much as dreamed of by architects. It has been instinctively
done in some degree by many, empirically in some degree by
many more; thoughtfully and thoroughly, I believe, by none.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXII</span>. We have hitherto considered the abacus as necessarily
a separate stone from the bell: evidently, however, the
strength of the capital will be undiminished if both are cut out
of one block. This is actually the case in many capitals, especially
those on a small scale; and in others the detached upper
stone is a mere representative of the abacus, and is much thinner
than the form of the capital requires, while the true abacus
is united with the bell, and concealed by its decoration, or
made part of it.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXIII</span>. Farther. We have hitherto considered bell and
abacus as both derived from the concentration of the cornice.
But it must at once occur to the reader, that the projection of
the under stone and the thickness of the upper, which are quite
enough for the work of the continuous cornice, may not be
enough always, or rather are seldom likely to be so, for the
harder work of the capital. Both may have to be deepened
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page117"></SPAN>117</span>
and expanded: but as this would cause a want of harmony in
the parts, when they occur on the same level, it is better in
such case to let the <i>entire</i> cornice form the abacus of the capital,
and put a deep capital bell beneath it.</p>
<table style="float: right; width: auto;" summary="Illustration">
<tr>
<td class="caption1">Fig. XXVII.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="figright2">
<SPAN name="fig_27"><ANTIMG src="images/img117.jpg" width-obs="300" height-obs="457" alt="Fig. XXVII." title="Fig. XXVII." /></SPAN></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><span class="scs">XXIV</span>. The reader will understand both arrangements instantly
by two examples. <SPAN href="#fig_27">Fig. XXVII.</SPAN> represents two windows,
more than usually beautiful
examples of a very frequent
Venetian form. Here the
deep cornice or string course
which runs along the wall
of the house is quite strong
enough for the work of the
capitals of the slender shafts:
its own upper stone is therefore
also theirs; its own lower
stone, by its revolution or
concentration, forms their
bells: but to mark the increased
importance of its function
in so doing, it receives decoration,
as the bell of the capital,
which it did not receive
as the under stone of the
cornice.</p>
<p>In <SPAN href="#fig_28">Fig. XXVIII.</SPAN>, a little bit of the church of Santa Fosca
at Torcello, the cornice or string course, which goes round
every part of the church, is not strong enough to form the
capitals of the shafts. It therefore forms their abaci only;
and in order to mark the diminished importance of its function,
it ceases to receive, as the abacus of the capital, the
decoration which it received as the string course of the
wall.</p>
<p>This last arrangement is of great frequency in Venice,
occurring most characteristically in St. Mark’s: and in the
Gothic of St. John and Paul we find the two arrangements
beautifully united, though in great simplicity; the string
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page118"></SPAN>118</span>
courses of the walls form the capitals of the shafts of the traceries;
and the abaci of the vaulting shafts of the apse.</p>
<table class="nobctr" style="clear: both; " summary="Illustration">
<tr>
<td class="caption1">Fig. XXVIII.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="figcenter2">
<SPAN name="fig_28"><ANTIMG src="images/img118.jpg" width-obs="450" height-obs="346" alt="Fig. XXVIII." title="Fig. XXVIII." /></SPAN></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><span class="scs">XXV</span>. We have hitherto spoken of capitals of circular
shafts only: those of square piers are more frequently formed
by the cornice only; otherwise they are like those of circular
piers, without the difficulty of reconciling the base of the bell
with its head.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXVI</span>. When two or more shafts are grouped together,
their capitals are usually treated as separate, until they come
into actual contact. If there be any awkwardness in the
junction, it is concealed by the decoration, and one abacus
serves, in most cases, for all. The double group, <SPAN href="#fig_27">Fig. XXVII.</SPAN>,
is the simplest possible type of the arrangement. In the richer
Northern Gothic groups of eighteen or twenty shafts cluster
together, and sometimes the smaller shafts crouch under the
capitals of the larger, and hide their heads in the crannies, with
small nominal abaci of their own, while the larger shafts carry
the serviceable abacus of the whole pier, as in the nave of Rouen.
There is, however, evident sacrifice of sound principle in
this system, the smaller abaci being of no use. They are the
exact contrary of the rude early abacus at Milan, given in <SPAN href="#plate_17">Plate XVII.</SPAN>
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page119"></SPAN>119</span>
There one poor abacus stretched itself out to do all the
work: here there are idle abaci getting up into corners and
doing none.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXVII</span>. Finally, we have considered the capital hitherto
entirely as an expansion of the bearing power of the shaft,
supposing the shaft composed of a single stone. But, evidently,
the capital has a function, if possible, yet more important,
when the shaft is composed of small masonry. It enables all
that masonry to act together, and to receive the pressure from
above collectively and with a single strength. And thus, considered
merely as a large stone set on the top of the shaft, it is
a feature of the highest architectural importance, irrespective
of its expansion, which indeed is, in some very noble capitals,
exceedingly small. And thus every large stone set at any
important point to reassemble the force of smaller masonry and
prepare it for the sustaining of weight, is a capital or “head”
stone (the true meaning of the word) whether it project or not.
Thus at 6, in <SPAN href="#plate_4">Plate IV.</SPAN>, the stones which support the thrust of
the brickwork are capitals, which have no projection at all;
and the large stones in the window above are capitals projecting
in one direction only.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXVIII</span>. The reader is now master of all he need know
respecting construction of capitals; and from what has been
laid before him, must assuredly feel that there can never be
any new system of architectural forms invented; but that all
vertical support must be, to the end of time, best obtained by
shafts and capitals. It has been so obtained by nearly every
nation of builders, with more or less refinement in the management
of the details; and the later Gothic builders of the North
stand almost alone in their effort to dispense with the natural
development of the shaft, and banish the capital from their
compositions.</p>
<p>They were gradually led into this error through a series of
steps which it is not here our business to trace. But they may
be generalised in a few words.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXIX</span>. All classical architecture, and the Romanesque
which is legitimately descended from it, is composed of bold
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page120"></SPAN>120</span>
independent shafts, plain or fluted, with bold detached capitals,
forming arcades or colonnades where they are needed; and of
walls whose apertures are surrounded by courses of parallel
lines called mouldings, which are continuous round the apertures,
and have neither shafts nor capitals. The shaft system
and moulding system are entirely separate.</p>
<p>The Gothic architects confounded the two. They clustered
the shafts till they looked like a group of mouldings. They
shod and capitaled the mouldings till they looked like a group
of shafts. So that a pier became merely the side of a door or
window rolled up, and the side of the window a pier unrolled
(vide last Chapter, <span class="scs">XXX</span>.), both being composed of a series of
small shafts, each with base and capital. The architect seemed
to have whole mats of shafts at his disposal, like the rush mats
which one puts under cream cheese. If he wanted a great pier
he rolled up the mat; if he wanted the side of a door he spread
out the mat: and now the reader has to add to the other distinctions
between the Egyptian and the Gothic shaft, already
noted in <span class="scs">XXVI</span>. of <SPAN href="#chap_8">Chap. VIII.</SPAN>, this one more—the most important
of all—that while the Egyptian rush cluster has only
one massive capital altogether, the Gothic rush mat has a separate
tiny capital to every several rush.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXX</span>. The mats were gradually made of finer rushes, until
it became troublesome to give each rush its capital. In fact,
when the groups of shafts became excessively complicated,
the expansion of their small abaci was of no use: it was dispensed
with altogether, and the mouldings of pier and jamb
ran up continuously into the arches.</p>
<p>This condition, though in many respects faulty and false,
is yet the eminently characteristic state of Gothic: it is the
definite formation of it as a distinct style, owing no farther aid
to classical models; and its lightness and complexity render it,
when well treated, and enriched with Flamboyant decoration,
a very glorious means of picturesque effect. It is, in fact, this
form of Gothic which commends itself most easily to the general
mind, and which has suggested the innumerable foolish
theories about the derivation of Gothic from tree trunks and
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page121"></SPAN>121</span>
avenues, which have from time to time been brought forward
by persons ignorant of the history of architecture.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXXI</span>. When the sense of picturesqueness, as well as that
of justness and dignity, had been lost, the spring of the continuous
mouldings was replaced by what Professor Willis calls
the Discontinuous impost; which, being a barbarism of the
basest and most painful kind, and being to architecture what
the setting of a saw is to music, I shall not trouble the reader
to examine. For it is not in my plan to note for him all the
various conditions of error, but only to guide him to the appreciation
of the right; and I only note even the true Continuous
or Flamboyant Gothic because this is redeemed by its beautiful
decoration, afterwards to be considered. For, as far as structure
is concerned, the moment the capital vanishes from the
shaft, that moment we are in error: all good Gothic has true
capitals to the shafts of its jambs and traceries, and all Gothic
is debased the instant the shaft vanishes. It matters not how
slender, or how small, or how low, the shaft may be: wherever
there is indication of concentrated vertical support, then the
capital is a necessary termination. I know how much Gothic,
otherwise beautiful, this sweeping principle condemns; but it
condemns not altogether. We may still take delight in its
lovely proportions, its rich decoration, or its elastic and reedy
moulding; but be assured, wherever shafts, or any approximations
to the forms of shafts, are employed, for whatever office,
or on whatever scale, be it in jambs or piers, or balustrades, or
traceries, without capitals, there is a defiance of the natural
laws of construction; and that, wherever such examples are
found in ancient buildings, they are either the experiments of
barbarism, or the commencements of decline.</p>
<hr class="foot" />
<div class="note">
<p><SPAN name="Footnote_47" href="#FnAnchor_47"><span class="fn">47</span></SPAN> <SPAN href="#app_19">Appendix 19</SPAN>, “Early English Capitals.”</p>
<p><SPAN name="Footnote_48" href="#FnAnchor_48"><span class="fn">48</span></SPAN> In this case the weight borne is supposed to increase as the abacus
widens; the illustration would have been clearer if I had assumed the
breadth of abacus to be constant, and that of the shaft to vary.</p>
</div>
<hr class="art" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page122"></SPAN>122</span></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />