Page:A History of Architecture in All Countries Vol 2.djvu/155

Rh Bk. VI. Ch. III. VAULTS. 139 gonal termination would have been more pleasing ; but when, as at York, or Gloucester, or Carlisle, the whole eastern wall is a screen of painted glass, divided by mullions and tracery of most exquisite design, judgment will probably go the other way. Such a window as that at York, 33 ft. in width by 80 ft. in height, is a marvellous creation, which few architectural developments in any part of the world can rival or even approach. On the whole, perhaps, the true answer to the question, is that, where a number of smaller chapels are wanted, the chevet form is the best and most artistic termination for a church; where these are not required, the square form is the most beautiful, because it is the most a]»propriate, and, like every- thing appropriate, capable of being made beautiful in the hands of a true artist. Vaults. / ^ '^ Whatever opinion may be formed as to the proportions of English cathedrals, or the arrangement of their plans, there can be no dispute as to the superiority of their vaults over those of all their Continental rivals. The reasons for this are various, and not very recondite. The most obvious is the facility of construction which arose from the moderation just pointed out in the section of our churches. The English always worked within their strength, instead of going to the very verge of it, like the French ; and thus they obtained the ])ower of subordinating constructive necessities to architectural beauty. Thus the English architects never attempted a vault of any magnitude till they were sufficiently skilled in construction to do it with facility. In a former chapter it has been pointed out how various and painful were the steps by which the French arrived at their system of vaulting — first by pointed tunnel-vaults and a system of domes, then by a com- bination of quadripartite and hexapartite intersecting vaults, of every conceivable form and variety, but always with a tendency to domes, and to the union of all pre-existing systems. This experimentalizing, added to the fyreat heiijht of their roofs and the slenderness of their clerestories, never left them sufficiently free to admit of their studying iBsthetic effects in this part of the construction. A second reason was, that for 150 years after the Conquest, our architects were content with wooden roofs for their naves. One of the earliest vaults we possess is that at Durham, commenced by Prior Melsonby, 1233. Long before that time the French architects had been trying all those expe<lients detailed at p]). 515, 516 of Vol. I., and had thus succeeded in vaulting their central aisles a century before we attempted it. In doing so, however, their eyes got accustomed to mechanical deformities which we never tolerated, and they were after- wards quite satisfied if the vault would stand, without caring much whether its form were beautiful or not.