Page:A history of architecture on the comparative method for the student, craftsman, and amateur.djvu/498

 440 COMPARATIVE ARCHITECTURE. art, instead of being dependent mainly for their form and effect on structural necessities. For the same reasons, the period may be looked upon as the age of accessories, in which iron, gold and silver work, and tombs, monuments, altars, fonts, and fountains, were designed in great numbers, and, by the whim and fanciful- ness of the designer, were special features of the style. Architecture ceased to a certain extent to be subject to the considerations of use, becoming largely independent of construc- tive exigencies, and to a greater extent an art of free expression in which beauty of design was sought for. Speaking generally, there was an endeavour to reconcile the Gothic and the Roman methods of construction, i.e., the body and facing were one and the same thing constructively, because the architects of the period, attracted by the mere external appearance of ancient Roman art, but perceiving that this form was merely an envelope, continued in the matter of construction to a large extent to follow the traditions of the Middle Ages, which did not separate the structure from the decoration. Owing, therefore, to ignorance of Roman methods, the Roman manner of forming the main walling of concrete and casing it with marble, stone, or brick was not followed. In the Gothic period each stone was finished, moulded, and sculptured in the workshops before being laid — a method which produced skilful and intelligent masons and stone dressers, and obliged the sculptor to make the decoration suit each piece of stone. In the Renaissance period the new mouldings and carvings could be executed with more exactitude and less expense in situ, and thenceforward the necessity of making the jointing accord with the various architectural features being no longer imperi- ously felt, a want of harmony between the jointing and the architectural features often resulted. A building, it will be observed, was regarded rather as a picture with pleasing combinations of lines and masses than as a struc- ture of utility, being often designed by men trained as painters, sculptors, or goldsmiths. Such structures often have a princely dignity, as in many of the Roman palaces (No. 197), where the column, pilaster, frieze, and cornice were employed as elements of composition with special regard to the artistic result and with considerable originality. The wide and narrow spacing of the pilasters in the Palazzo Giraud is a novel form (No. 195). It would be a great mistake, therefore, to state that Renaissance architecture was solely imitative, for new and delightful combina- tions of features were introduced, and architecture became to a great extent a personal art due to the fancy of individual architects, many of whom founded schools of design, in which their principles were followed by their pupils and followers. In the decorative detail, also, an advance was made. In