<h3><SPAN name="chap_17"></SPAN>CHAPTER XVII.</h3>
<h5>FILLING OF APERTURE.</h5>
<p><span class="scs">I.</span> <span class="sc">Thus</span> far we have been concerned with the outline only
of the aperture: we were next, it will be remembered, to
consider the necessary modes of filling it with valves in the
case of the door, or with glass or tracery in that of the
window.</p>
<p>1. Fillings of doors. We concluded, in the previous Chapter,
that doors in buildings of any importance or size should
have headings in the form of an arch. This is, however, the
most inconvenient form we could choose, as respects the fitting
of the valves of the doorway; for the arch-shaped head of the
valves not only requires considerable nicety in fitting to the
arch, but adds largely to the weight of the door,—a double disadvantage,
straining the hinges and making it cumbersome in
opening. And this inconvenience is so much perceived by the
eye, that a door valve with a pointed head is always a disagreeable
object. It becomes, therefore, a matter of true
necessity so to arrange the doorway as to admit of its being
fitted with rectangular valves.</p>
<p><span class="scs">II.</span> Now, in determining the form of the aperture, we
supposed the jamb of the door to be of the utmost height required
for entrance. The extra height of the arch is unnecessary
as an opening, the arch being required for its strength
only, not for its elevation. There is, therefore, no reason why
it should not be barred across by a horizontal lintel, into which
the valves may be fitted, and the triangular or semicircular
arched space above the lintel may then be permanently closed,
as we choose, either with bars, or glass, or stone.</p>
<p>This is the form of all good doors, without exception,
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page184"></SPAN>184</span>
over the whole world and in all ages, and no other can ever
be invented.</p>
<p><span class="scs">III.</span> In the simplest doors the cross lintel is of wood only,
and glass or bars occupy the space above, a very frequent form
in Venice. In more elaborate doors the cross lintel is of
stone, and the filling sometimes of brick, sometimes of stone,
very often a grand single stone being used to close the entire
space: the space thus filled is called the Tympanum. In
large doors the cross lintel is too long to bear the great incumbent
weight of this stone filling without support; it is, therefore,
carried by a pier in the centre; and two valves are used,
fitted to the rectangular spaces on each side of the pier. In
the most elaborate examples of this condition, each of these
secondary doorways has an arch heading, a cross lintel, and a
triangular filling or tympanum of its own, all subordinated to
the main arch above.</p>
<p><span class="scs">IV.</span> 2. Fillings of windows.</p>
<p>When windows are large, and to be filled with glass, the
sheet of glass, however constructed, whether of large panes or
small fragments, requires the support of bars of some kind,
either of wood, metal, or stone. Wood is inapplicable on a
large scale, owing to its destructibility; very fit for door-valves,
which can be easily refitted, and in which weight
would be an inconvenience, but very unfit for window-bars,
which, if they decayed, might let the whole window be blown
in before their decay was observed, and in which weight
would be an advantage, as offering more resistance to the
wind.</p>
<p>Iron is, however, fit for window-bars, and there seems no
constructive reason why we should not have iron traceries, as
well as iron pillars, iron churches, and iron steeples. But I
have, in the “Seven Lamps,” given reasons for not considering
such structures as architecture at all.</p>
<p>The window-bars must, therefore, be of stone, and of stone
only.</p>
<p><span class="scs">V.</span> The purpose of the window being always to let in as
much light, and command as much view, as possible, these
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page185"></SPAN>185</span>
bars of stone are to be made as slender and as few as they can
be, consistently with their due strength.</p>
<table style="float: right; width: auto;" summary="Illustration">
<tr>
<td class="caption1">Fig. XLV.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="figright2">
<SPAN name="fig_45"><ANTIMG src="images/img185.jpg" width-obs="350" height-obs="381" alt="Fig. XLV." title="Fig. XLV." /></SPAN></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>Let it be required to support the breadth of glass, <i>a</i>, <i>b</i>, <SPAN href="#fig_45">Fig.
XLV.</SPAN> The tendency of the
glass sustaining any force, as
of wind from without, is to
bend into an arch inwards, in
the dotted line, and break in
the centre. It is to be supported,
therefore, by the bar
put in its centre, <i>c</i>.</p>
<p>But this central bar, <i>c</i>, may
not be enough, and the spaces
<i>a c</i>, <i>c b</i>, may still need support.
The next step will be
to put two bars instead of
one, and divide the window into three spaces as at <i>d</i>.</p>
<p>But this may still not be enough, and the window may need
three bars. Now the greatest stress is always on the centre
of the window. If the three bars are equal in strength, as at
<i>e</i>, the central bar is either too slight for its work, or the lateral
bars too thick for theirs. Therefore, we must slightly increase
the thickness of the central bar, and diminish that of the
lateral ones, so as to obtain the arrangement at <i>f h</i>. If the
window enlarge farther, each of the spaces <i>f g</i>, <i>g h</i>, is treated
as the original space <i>a b</i>, and we have the groups of bars <i>k</i>
and <i>l</i>.</p>
<p>So that, whatever the shape of the window, whatever the
direction and number of the bars, there are to be central or
main bars; second bars subordinated to them; third bars subordinated
to the second, and so on to the number required.
This is called the subordination of tracery, a system delightful
to the eye and mind, owing to its anatomical framing and
unity, and to its expression of the laws of good government in
all fragile and unstable things. All tracery, therefore, which
is not subordinated, is barbarous, in so far as this part of its
structure is concerned.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page186"></SPAN>186</span></p>
<p><span class="scs">VI.</span> The next question will be the direction of the bars.
The reader will understand at once, without any laborious
proof, that a given area of glass, supported by its edges, is
stronger in its resistance to violence when it is arranged in a
long strip or band than in a square; and that, therefore, glass
is generally to be arranged, especially in windows on a large
scale, in oblong areas: and if the bars so dividing it be placed
horizontally, they will have less power of supporting themselves,
and will need to be thicker in consequence, than if
placed vertically. As far, therefore, as the form of the window
permits, they are to be vertical.</p>
<p><span class="scs">VII.</span> But even when so placed, they cannot be trusted to
support themselves beyond a certain height, but will need cross
bars to steady them. Cross bars of stone are, therefore, to be
introduced at necessary intervals, not to divide the glass, but
to support the upright stone bars. The glass is always to be
divided longitudinally as far as possible, and the upright bars
which divide it supported at proper intervals. However high
the window, it is almost impossible that it should require more
than two cross bars.</p>
<p><span class="scs">VIII.</span> It may sometimes happen that when tall windows
are placed very close to each other for the sake of more light,
the masonry between them may stand in need, or at least be the
better of, some additional support. The cross bars of the windows
may then be thickened, in order to bond the intermediate
piers more strongly together, and if this thickness appear ungainly,
it may be modified by decoration.</p>
<p><span class="scs">IX.</span> We have thus arrived at the idea of a vertical frame
work of subordinated bars, supported by cross bars at the
necessary intervals, and the only remaining question is the
method of insertion into the aperture. Whatever its form, if
we merely let the ends of the bars into the voussoirs of its
heading, the least settlement of the masonry would distort the
arch, or push up some of its voussoirs, or break the window
bars, or push them aside. Evidently our object should be to
connect the window bars among themselves, so framing them
together that they may give the utmost possible degree of support
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page187"></SPAN>187</span>
to the whole window head in case of any settlement. But
we know how to do this already: our window bars are nothing
but small shafts. Capital them; throw small arches across between
the smaller bars, large arches over them between the
larger bars, one comprehensive arch over the whole, or else a
horizontal lintel, if the window have a flat head; and we have
a complete system of mutual support, independent of the
aperture head, and yet assisting to sustain it, if need be. But
we want the spandrils of this arch system to be themselves as
light, and to let as much light through them, as possible: and
we know already how to pierce them (<SPAN href="#chap_12">Chap. XII.</SPAN> <span class="scs">VII</span>.). We
pierce them with circles; and we have, if the circles are small
and the stonework strong, the traceries of Giotto and the
Pisan school; if the circles are as large as possible and the bars
slender, those which I have already figured and described as
the only perfect traceries of the Northern Gothic.<SPAN name="FnAnchor_58" href="#Footnote_58"><span class="sp">58</span></SPAN> The
varieties of their design arise partly from the different size of
window and consequent number of bars; partly from the
different heights of their pointed arches, as well as the various
positions of the window head in relation to the roof, rendering
one or another arrangement better for dividing the light, and
partly from �sthetic and expressional requirements, which,
within certain limits, may be allowed a very important influence:
for the strength of the bars is ordinarily so much
greater than is absolutely necessary, that some portion of it
may be gracefully sacrificed to the attainment of variety in the
plans of tracery—a variety which, even within its severest
limits, is perfectly endless; more especially in the pointed
arch, the proportion of the tracery being in the round arch
necessarily more fixed.</p>
<p><span class="scs">X.</span> The circular window furnishes an exception to the
common law, that the bars shall be vertical through the
greater part of their length: for if they were so, they could
neither have secure perpendicular footing, nor secure heading,
their thrust being perpendicular to the curve of the voussoirs
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page188"></SPAN>188</span>
only in the centre of the window; therefore, a small circle,
like the axle of a wheel, is put into the centre of the window,
large enough to give footing to the necessary number of
radiating bars; and the bars are arranged as spokes, being all
of course properly capitaled and arch-headed. This is the best
form of tracery for circular windows, naturally enough called
wheel windows when so filled.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XI</span>. Now, I wish the reader especially to observe that we
have arrived at these forms of perfect Gothic tracery without
the smallest reference to any practice of any school, or to any
law of authority whatever. They are forms having essentially
nothing whatever to do either with Goths or Greeks. They
are eternal forms, based on laws of gravity and cohesion; and
no better, nor any others so good, will ever be invented, so
long as the present laws of gravity and cohesion subsist.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XII</span>. It does not at all follow that this group of forms
owes its origin to any such course of reasoning as that which
has now led us to it. On the contrary, there is not the
smallest doubt that tracery began, partly, in the grouping of
windows together (subsequently enclosed within a large arch<SPAN name="FnAnchor_59" href="#Footnote_59"><span class="sp">59</span></SPAN>),
and partly in the fantastic penetrations of a single slab of
stones under the arch, as the circle in <SPAN href="#plate_5">Plate V.</SPAN> above. The
perfect form seems to have been accidentally struck in passing
from experiment on the one side, to affectation on the other;
and it was so far from ever becoming systematised, that I am
aware of no type of tracery for which a <i>less</i> decided preference
is shown in the buildings in which it exists. The early pierced
traceries are multitudinous and perfect in their kind,—the late
Flamboyant, luxuriant in detail, and lavish in quantity,—but
the perfect forms exist in comparatively few churches, generally
in portions of the church only, and are always connected,
and that closely, either with the massy forms out of which
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page189"></SPAN>189</span>
they have emerged, or with the enervated types into which
they are instantly to degenerate.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XIII</span>. Nor indeed are we to look upon them as in all
points superior to the more ancient examples. We have above
conducted our reasoning entirely on the supposition that a
single aperture is given, which it is the object to fill with
glass, diminishing the power of the light as little as possible.
But there are many cases, as in triforium and cloister lights, in
which glazing is not required; in which, therefore, the bars,
if there be any, must have some more important function than
that of merely holding glass, and in which their actual use is
to give steadiness and <i>tone</i>, as it were, to the arches and walls
above and beside them; or to give the idea of protection to
those who pass along the triforium, and of seclusion to those
who walk in the cloister. Much thicker shafts, and more
massy arches, may be properly employed in work of this kind;
and many groups of such tracery will be found resolvable into
true colonnades, with the arches in pairs, or in triple or quadruple
groups, and with small rosettes pierced above them for
light. All this is just as <i>right</i> in its place, as the glass tracery
is in its own function, and often much more grand. But the
same indulgence is not to be shown to the affectations which
succeeded the developed forms. Of these there are three
principal conditions: the Flamboyant of France, the Stump
tracery of Germany, and the Perpendicular of England.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XIV</span>. Of these the first arose, by the most delicate and
natural transitions, out of the perfect school. It was an endeavor
to introduce more grace into its lines, and more change
into its combinations; and the �sthetic results are so beautiful,
that for some time after the right road had been left, the aberration
was more to be admired than regretted. The final conditions
became fantastic and effeminate, but, in the country
where they had been invented, never lost their peculiar grace
until they were replaced by the Renaissance. The copies of
the school in England and Italy have all its faults and none
of its beauties; in France, whatever it lost in method or
in majesty, it gained in fantasy: literally Flamboyant, it
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page190"></SPAN>190</span>
breathed away its strength into the air; but there is not more
difference between the commonest doggrel that ever broke
prose into unintelligibility, and the burning mystery of Coleridge,
or spirituality of Elizabeth Barrett, than there is between
the dissolute dulness of English Flamboyant, and the
flaming undulations of the wreathed lines of delicate stone, that
confuse themselves with the clouds of every morning sky that
brightens above the valley of the Seine.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XV</span>. The second group of traceries, the intersectional or
German group, may be considered as including the entire
range of the absurd forms which were invented in order to display
dexterity in stone-cutting and ingenuity in construction.
They express the peculiar character of the German mind,
which cuts the frame of every truth joint from joint, in order
to prove the edge of its instruments; and, in all cases, prefers
a new or a strange thought to a good one, and a subtle
thought to a useful one. The point and value of the
German tracery consists principally in turning the features
of good traceries upside down, and cutting them in two
where they are properly continuous. To destroy at once foundation
and membership, and suspend everything in the air,
keeping out of sight, as far as possible, the evidences of a beginning
and the probabilities of an end, are the main objects of
German architecture, as of modern German divinity.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XVI</span>. This school has, however, at least the merit of ingenuity.
Not so the English Perpendicular, though a very
curious school also in <i>its</i> way. In the course of the reasoning
which led us to the determination of the perfect Gothic tracery,
we were induced successively to reject certain methods of arrangement
as weak, dangerous, or disagreeable. Collect all
these together, and practise them at once, and you have the
English Perpendicular.</p>
<table class="nobctr" style="clear: both; " summary="Illustration">
<tr>
<td class="caption1">Fig. XLVI.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="figcenter2">
<SPAN name="fig_46"><ANTIMG src="images/img191.jpg" width-obs="600" height-obs="383" alt="Fig. XLVI." title="Fig. XLVI." /></SPAN></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>As thus. You find, in the first place (<span class="scs">V</span>.), that your tracery
bars are to be subordinated, less to greater; so you take
a group of, suppose, eight, which you make all exactly equal,
giving you nine equal spaces in the window, as at A, <SPAN href="#fig_46">Fig.
XLVI.</SPAN> You found, in the second place (<span class="scs">VII</span>.), that there was
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page191"></SPAN>191</span>
no occasion for more than two cross bars; so you take at least
four or five (also represented at A, <SPAN href="#fig_46">Fig. XLVI.</SPAN>), also carefully
equalised, and set at equal spaces. You found, in the third
place (<span class="scs">VIII</span>.), that these bars were to be strengthened, in order
to support the main piers; you will therefore cut the ends off
the uppermost, and the fourth into three pieces (as also at A).
In the fourth place, you found (<span class="scs">IX</span>.) that you were never to
run a vertical bar into the arch head; so you run them all into
it (as at B, <SPAN href="#fig_46">Fig. XLVI.</SPAN>); and this last arrangement will be useful
in two ways, for it will not only expose both the bars and the
archivolt to an apparent probability of every species of dislocation
at any moment, but it will provide you with two pleasing
interstices at the flanks, in the shape of carving-knives, <i>a</i>, <i>b</i>,
which, by throwing across the curves <i>c</i>, <i>d</i>, you may easily
multiply into four; and these, as you can put nothing into
their sharp tops, will afford you a more than usually rational
excuse for a little bit of Germanism, in filling them with
arches upside down, <i>e</i>, <i>f</i>. You will now have left at your disposal
two and forty similar interstices, which, for the sake of
variety, you will proceed to fill with two and forty similar
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page192"></SPAN>192</span>
arches: and, as you were told that the moment a bar received
an arch heading, it was to be treated as a shaft and capitalled,
you will take care to give your bars no capitals nor bases, but
to run bars, foliations and all, well into each other after the
fashion of cast-iron, as at C. You have still two triangular
spaces occurring in an important part of your window, <i>g g</i>,
which, as they are very conspicuous, and you cannot make
them uglier than they are, you will do wisely to let alone;—and
you will now have the west window of the cathedral of
Winchester, a very perfect example of English Perpendicular.
Nor do I think that you can, on the whole, better the arrangement,
unless, perhaps, by adding buttresses to some of the bars,
as is done in the cathedral at Gloucester; these buttresses having
the double advantage of darkening the window when seen
from within, and suggesting, when it is seen from without, the
idea of its being divided by two stout party walls, with a
heavy thrust against the glass.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XVII</span>. Thus far we have considered the plan of the tracery
only: we have lastly to note the conditions under which the
glass is to be attached to the bars; and the sections of the bars
themselves.</p>
<table style="float: left; width: auto;" summary="Illustration">
<tr>
<td class="caption1">Fig. XLVII.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="figleft2">
<SPAN name="fig_47"><ANTIMG src="images/img192.jpg" width-obs="120" height-obs="83" alt="Fig. XLVII." title="Fig. XLVII." /></SPAN></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>These bars we have seen, in the perfect form, are to become
shafts; but, supposing the object to be the admission of as
much light as possible, it is clear that the thickness of the bar
ought to be chiefly in the depth of the window, and that by
increasing the depth of the bar we may diminish its breadth:
clearly, therefore, we should employ the double group of
shafts, <i>b</i>, of <SPAN href="#fig_14">Fig. XIV.</SPAN>, setting it edgeways in the window:
but as the glass would then come between the two shafts, we
must add a member into which it is to be fitted, as at <i>a</i>, <SPAN href="#fig_47">Fig.
XLVII.</SPAN>, and uniting these three members
together in the simplest way, with a curved
instead of a sharp recess behind the shafts,
we have the section <i>b</i>, the perfect, but simplest
type of the main tracery bars in good
Gothic. In triforium and cloister tracery, which has no glass
to hold, the central member is omitted, and we have either the
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page193"></SPAN>193</span>
pure double shaft, always the most graceful, or a single and
more massy shaft, which is the simpler and more usual form.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XVIII</span>. Finally: there is an intermediate arrangement between
the glazed and the open tracery, that of the domestic
traceries of Venice. Peculiar conditions, hereafter to be described,
require the shafts of these traceries to become the
main vertical supports of the floors and walls. Their thickness
is therefore enormous; and yet free egress is required between
them (into balconies) which is obtained by doors in their
lattice glazing. To prevent the inconvenience and ugliness
of driving the hinges and fastenings of them into the shafts,
and having the play of the doors in the intervals, the entire
glazing is thrown behind the pillars, and attached to their abaci
and bases with iron. It is thus securely sustained by their
massy bulk, and leaves their symmetry and shade undisturbed.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XIX</span>. The depth at which the glass should be placed, in
windows without traceries, will generally be fixed by the forms
of their bevelling, the glass occupying the narrowest interval;
but when its position is not thus fixed, as in many London
houses, it is to be remembered that the deeper the glass is set
(the wall being of given thickness), the more light will enter,
and the clearer the prospect will be to a person sitting quietly
in the centre of the room; on the contrary, the farther out
the glass is set, the more convenient the window will be for a
person rising and looking out of it. The one, therefore, is an
arrangement for the idle and curious, who care only about
what is going on upon the earth: the other for those who are
willing to remain at rest, so that they have free admission of
the light of Heaven. This might be noted as a curious expressional
reason for the necessity (of which no man of ordinary
feeling would doubt for a moment) of a deep recess in
the window, on the outside, to all good or architectural effect:
still, as there is no reason why people should be made idle by
having it in their power to look out of window, and as the
slight increase of light or clearness of view in the centre of a
room is more than balanced by the loss of space, and the
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page194"></SPAN>194</span>
greater chill of the nearer glass and outside air, we can, I fear,
allege no other structural reason for the picturesque external
recess, than the expediency of a certain degree of protection,
for the glass, from the brightest glare of sunshine, and heaviest
rush of rain.</p>
<hr class="foot" />
<div class="note">
<p><SPAN name="Footnote_58" href="#FnAnchor_58"><span class="fn">58</span></SPAN> “Seven Lamps,” p. 53.</p>
<p><SPAN name="Footnote_59" href="#FnAnchor_59"><span class="fn">59</span></SPAN> On the north side of the nave of the cathedral of Lyons, there is an
early French window, presenting one of the usual groups of foliated arches
and circles, left, as it were, loose, without any enclosing curve. The effect
is very painful. This remarkable window is associated with others of the
common form.</p>
</div>
<hr class="art" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page195"></SPAN>195</span></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />