An essay on the origin and development of window tracery in England; with nearly four hundred illustrations

Front matter

if ii .

■li i jsf 1 i:/|.llii#tSigi2||i|l^^

1 1 1 Ipifilif liip f ®i I J i. 1

Preface

The present volume consists of an improved and extended form of several papers on the subject of Tracery read before the Oxford Architectural Society at intervals during the years 184G and 1848. Each of the three first Chapters represents a paper. Of these the second and third are essentially the same as when communicated to the Society, allowing for a searching revision, and for the insertion of passages omitted in reading for want of time. But the first Chapter has been completely re-written, and the fourth is an entirely new addition.

I have thought it advisable to give these particulars, as the dates will sufficiently obviate any suspicion of rivalry with the excellent work by Mr. Sharpe on a nearly similar subject. The latter had not assumed its present form till the whole of my three first parts were all but ready for the press, and the earlier numbers certainly gave no promise that a complete work on Tracery was designed by the accomplished author. Yet had it been otherwise, I cannot but think that the field of architectural literature might easily contain both. Indeed, if I may venture so to speak, it seems to me that both are necessary to a complete working out of our very extensive subject. Mr. Sharpe and myself have, from obvious circumstances, regarded it from such very different points that each has a wide field entirely to himself ; it is but seldom that we come across

VI

PREFACE.

one another’s path, and I do not remember any important differenee of opinion when we do. Each has followed out the line to which his own studies and turn of mind naturally directed him, and to which therefore he was most likely to do justice ; but on my part at least, most certainly, without at all undervaluing that to which he was less attracted. Mr. Sharpe, at once a Cambridge man and a professional architect, is naturally far more at home than I can pretend to be in principles of mechanism and construction ; while my own studies have led me to pay a more diligent attention to the sesthetical part of the subject, to the artistic principles of composition, and the classification and nomenclature of the various forms which tracery has assumed. In his own department, Mr. Sharpe has proved himself a worthy companion of Professor Willis ; his views of the origin of tracery are so sound and clear, and at the same time so elaborately drawn out, that, had they appeared earlier, I should probably have entirely eliminated my own remarks on the same branch of the same subject, so exceedingly meagre must they appear beside them. On the other hand, Mr. Sharpe attempts hardly any classification of the minuter varieties of tracery ; and his scheme involved but a very slight notice of the Plowing style, and none at all of the Flamboyant and Perpendicular.

In these parts of my sidrject I feel that I have all the advantages and all the disadvantages of one entering on an entirely new path. I have found numerous valuable hints in the works of Rickman, Brandon, Paley and others, and oecasional definitions and designations of particular classes, some of which I have adopted in my own work. But I have never yet found any systematic arrangement and nomenclature of the numerous divisions and subdivisions of Gothic tracery to supply the want of such an one first led me to the present undertaking. As a first attempt then, it is doubtless very imperfect ; in numerous cases I would most willingly exchange my designations for better ones, did such occur to me ; but I may be allowed to say, “ dimidium facti, qui coepit, habet.” It is something to have made some classification and nomenclature, however imperfect, if it be only as a groundwork for others indefinitely to improve upon. And I may add that no one who has not made the experiment can have any conception of the intense labour and strain upon the mind involved in thus working all but entirely alone. From those who may have gone through the like in any kindred pursuit I should expect to find almost unlimited allowance for individual errors and imperfections, provided only the general groundwork is esteemed sound and legitimate.

In my main classification I have assumed the same four divisions of Gothic Architecture, Lancet, Geometrical, Flowing, and Perpendicular, which I took as the groundwork of the Gothic portion of my Flistory of Architecture. And I am well pleased to see this view gradually gaining adherents among those who are most competent to pronounce upon such a subject. First and foremost I may reckon Mr. Sharpe himself’’. The same view has been more recently maintained by Mr. Poole, in a paper read before the Northampton Architectural Society, and which w'ell deserves some more permanent abiding-place than the columns of a provincial journal. From this last paper it also appears that Mr. Poole himself is the author of the

« Professor Willis’ nomenclature of Geometrical being equally Curvilinear, some forms of tracery is chielly con- the division is thus rendered unnecessastructive, being based on the mouldings ; rily illogical ; I have therefore retained it is therefore a cross-division to mine. the old and expressive term “ Flowing.” Mr. Sharpe’s division coincides with I regret having to differ from Mr. Sharpe mine as far as it goes. But I cannot on this point, as he has done me the admire his name of “ Curvilinear” to honour to approve my nomenclature of denote the later Decorated style; the several of the minor subdivisions.

vm

PREFACE.

excellent review of Mr. Sharpe’s work in the Archaeological Journal. I might almost call the appearance of that article, when compared with former ones on similar subjects, an sera in architectural literature. It is something much more than the mere change from an erroneous to a correct opinion on a particular point ; it is a deliberate recognition, on the part of the most powerful body of architectural students, of those deeper and more extended views of the subject, which their organ at one time certainly ignored and even opposed. Had such a change taken place two years sooner, much of the preface to my History of Architecture would have been unsaid ; the remarks, which then were just, woidd have been altogether uncalled for b

I need hardly say that the present work is, in the strictest sense, purely architectural. The general view of the art and its revolutions can never be accurately grasped without reference to general history, ecclesiastical and political ; but it is altogether unnecessary and unadvisable to introduce any thing like controversial matter into a

® To turn to another point, I am indeed glad to have the support of another able article in the same periodical, proceeding too from no less a pen than that of Dr. Whewell, for a view of mine in which I difter from Mr. Ruskin, and from the author of an able review of Mr. Sliarpe’s work and my own in the Gentleman’s Magazine for November, 1850. “ The precision and order,” say.s

the Reviewer, “ of geometrical tracery gave way to curvilinear forms and combinations, in which the tracery-bars were made to ramify and undulate with a hitherto unknown flexibilil)'. W'’e are willing to regard this change, with Mr. Ruskin, as the first fatal blow to Gothic art ; the stone tracery-bars now were taught to appear as possessed of a ductility altogether foreign to their nature: ‘ this was a change which sacri-' ficed a great principle of truth ; and sacrificed the expression of the qualities of the material ; and however delightful its results in their first developments, it was ultimately ruinous.’ ” On the otherhand Dr. Whewell remarks, “ that tracery necessarily implies that the attention is fixed upon the tracery -bars as the positive elements of the structure; and that when the window space is either so constructed or so seen that the blank spaces (trefoils, quatrefoils, &c.) strike the eye, the intermediate bars being blotted into unorganized spaces of variable breadth, (as the cu.sps project and retire) produces the effect of genuine tracery no longer. This holds whether the quatrefoils, &c., be seen from wuthin, as lights in a dark space, or from without, as dark figures in a light space. Much of the filling of Italian windows appears to be of this spurious kind of tracery.” Archaeological Journal, September, 1850. p. 221.

r RE FACE.

IX merely teclmical investigation into a portion of its details. I believe the disputes between the spiritual and temporal powers, and the enthusiasm of the crusades, to have had no small influence on the general development of Romanesque and Gothic Architecture ; but here we have simply to do with their mere details and technicalities. I have not, and never had, the slightest belief in the system of architectural symbolism put forth by many writers for whom I have a high respect ; I really cannot rate the intellect of the great mediasval architects so low as to suppose them capable of descending to the wearisome, and indeed often well nigh profane allegorizing, which by some writers is not only attributed to them as a matter of fact, but is even held to be in some mysterious manner connected with our perceptions of beauty. There being therefore no temptation to do otherwise, I flatter myself that nothing will be found in this volume which any reader, of whatever opinions, can consider unconnected with the subject.

As to the illustrations, I assume that their simple character can stand in need of no apology. Of course a smaller number of highly finished engravings would have made a much prettier book, but the utility of the volume would have been diminished in proportion to the increase of its beauty. It is clear that, with my treatment of the snbject, the first point nns to have the greatest possible number of examples. I have for the most part*" — indeed 1 have hardly ever purposely done otherwise — confined them to examples not previously engraved ; being content to refer to engravings in other works whenever they suited my purpose. They have all been engraved from drawings of my own made from original sketches. The greater pro-

>1 One can liardly use milder 1 in- « The exceptions would prehahly he guasie when one reads of “ vul.ie” found chiefly in Cathedrals and other and “ pede” windows. imponant churches.

b

X

PREFACE.

portion of these are my own, but many have been communicated by friends. I have to thank Mr. George Gilbert Scott — and I have great satisfaction in coupling so eminent a name with my work — for a large collection of drawings of German Geometrical windows, several of Avhich have been introduced^. To the Rev. J. E. Millard, M.A., Head Master of Magdalen Colleo;e School, I am also indebted for numerous valuable examples, chiefly from the East of England, a district with which I have hardly any personal acquaintance. And obligations, greater in amount, though not in degree, are due to the Committee of the Oxford Architectural Society for their liberality in placing at my disposal the whole of their extensive collection of drawings, including the valuable accumulations of Mr. Rickman. Eroni this latter source many of my best examples are derived, as well as several from drawings in the same collection by the Rev. William Grey, ]\I. A., of Magdalen Hall. I must Anally not omit to thank my friend and coadjutor in so many undertakings, the Rev. G. W. Cox, for much assistance rendered at different stages of my labours.

With regard to those illustrations for which I am most directly responsible, I would beg for the candid indulgence of other observers for any minute defects which may be found in th.em. It is no easy matter to make a large collection of windows without some inaccuracies. I am only endeavouring to shelter myself under their example,

' Had my view extended directly to foreign tracery — which, had I had the means so to exten 1 it, it doubtless would — Mr. Scott’s kindness would have been still more serviceable. But as, unlike the general features of a style, technicalities of this kind can on y be learned by personal inspection or by collections of drawings of vast extent, I determined to confine my primary subject to England and Wales — the latter a more important adjunct than might be imagined — introducing foreign, and even Scottish, examples merely by way of occasional illustrations or contrast. My references to the Island of Jersey may seem an exception ; but I was anxious to insert all the examples I could of Flamboyant tracery, of whicli that island contains some important varieties, and I must also confess some partiality for the only transmarine country I have as yet visited.

TREFACE.

XI when I say that I have often fonnd errors and discrepancies in the drawings even of Mr. Rickman and Mr. Sharpe. Many of my own drawings were necessarily taken from hasty sketches made long ago, some before I liad learned accurately to observe the subordination of mouldings ; of course I might have seen fewer buildings and drawn them more elaborately, but I think such a process would have greatly diminished my amount of real information. But if I have, as doubtless I have, here and there given a piercing a wrong proportion, or drawn a trefoil instead of a cinquefoil, the accuracy of a particular example is of comparatively little consecpience, so long as I have really arranged and illustrated the several classes into which the varying forms of tracery resolve themselves.

The want of an Index having been justly objected in several quarters to my History of Architecture, I have endeavoured to avoid any blame on that score on the present occasion.

Oahlands, Dursley,

Novemher Wth, 1850.

Chapter I. Of Geometrical Tracery. page

§ 1. Introduction ....... 1

2. Of tlie Origin of Tracery .... 5

4. Of Foil Tracery ...... 33

5. Of Ai’ch Tracery ...... 40

A. Combination of Geometrical and Foil Tracery 50

a. Intermixtiure ...... ib.

b. Geometrical Skeletons with Foil Patterns 51

B. Combination of Arch Tracery with Geometrical a. Intermixtm’e of Geometrical and Arch b. Arch Skeletons with Geometrical Patterns ib.

c. Arch and Foil Tracery .... 55

a. Mullions not Intersecting . . ib.

iS. Mullions Intersecting ... 56

y. Corruptions of Arch and Foil Tracery 58

d. Anomalous Arch Tracery . . . 61

e. Subarcuation ..... 62

f. Subarcuated Foil Windows . . . 69

g. Imperfect Spherical Triangles . . 70

C. Centre-pieces of Wheel Tracery, etc. . . 72

a. In Geometrical Figm-es . . . ib.

b. Wheel Tracery without a central Geome-

trical Figure . . . . . 75

c. Divergent Vesicai in Head . . . 76

d. Foil Wheel Tracery . . . . 78

e. Divergent Compositions . . . ib.

XIV

CONTENTS.

PAGE

D. Introduction of Straight Lines . . . 79

a. Spiked P'oliation . . . . . ib.

b. Straight Lines in Arch Tracery . . 81

c. Anomalous Instances of Straight Lines . 82

Conclusion . . . . . . . 83

Chapter II. Of Flowing Tracery

§ 1. Definition of Flowing Tracery .... 85

2. Subdivisions of Flowing Traceiy . . . 88

4. Of Ogee Tracery . . . • . . 97

5. Of Flowing Wheel Tracery .... 104

a. Of Divergent Tracery . . . .106

b. Of Horizontal Convergent Tracery . . 108

c. Of Reversed Convergent Tracery . . 110

6. Of Combination in Flowing Windows . . ib.

a. Combination of Reticulated and Ogee

Tracery . . . . . .Ill

b. Combination of Reticulated and Divergent c. Combination of Reticulated and Convergent 113

d. Combination of Divergent and Convergent ib ,

e. Combination of Retie ala ted, Divergent, and

Convergent . . . . .115

7. Of the Transition from Geometrical to Flowing

8. Combinations of Geometrical and Flowing Tracery 125

a. Geometrical Skeletons containing Floiving

Patterns . . . . . ib.

b. Arch Skeletons containing Flowing Patterns 127

c. Flowing Skeletons containing Geometrical d. CJommingling of Geometrical and Floiving a. Combination of Geometrical and Flowing

Tracery in Subarcuated Windows . 133

b. Subarcuated Windows with Geometrical

centre-jiieces . . . . . ib.

c. Subarcuated Window's with \\Tieel centre-

CONTENTS. XV

PAGE

d. Subarcuated Windows wdth Flowing centrea. Witli a Complementary light . . ib.

jS. With a Central Midlion . . . 142

e. Quasi-Subarcuated Windows . . . 143

Chapter III. Of Complete Coxtinuous Tracery, Flamboyant AND Perpendicular

§ 1. Of Flamboyant Tracery and its Origin . . 155

Definition of Flamboyant Tracery . . 156

Derivation of Flamboyant Tracery from Reticulated . . . . . .159

Combination of Flamboyant and other forms 164

2. Of Perpendicular Tracery .... 166

3. Of the Varieties of Perpendicular Tracery . 173

4. Of Snpennnllioned Tracery . . . . 177

Snpermnllioned Windows with open Transoms 178

Sujjermullioued Windows Transomcd . . 179

Subarcuated Supermullioned Windows . . 180

a. VTth a Complementary Light . . 181

b. Without a Complementary Light . 185

Subarcuated Alternate Windows . . .190

Combinations of Alternate and Supermullioned

6. Of Panelled Tracery . . . . .194

7. Of the Derivation of Perpendicular Tracery from

Development of Reticulated Tracery into Perpendicular ..... 200

Development of Ogee Tracery into Perpendicular ...... 204

Origin of Supermullioned Tracery . . 206

8. Of the Combination of Perpendicular and Earlier

Combination of Perpendicular with Geometrical and Flowing Tracery . . 215

Combinations of Perpendicular and Arch

XVI

CONTENTS.

PAGE

a. Excessive Subarcuation . . . 225

b. Excessive Groujnng . . . 229

Chapter IV. Misceltaneohs Windoavs

§ 1. Of Circular WindoAA^s . . . . .232

a. Circular WiiidoAvs Avitli Geometrical Tracery 234

b. Circidar WindoAvs Avitb Wheel Tracery . 235

2. Of Triangular WiudoAV'S ..... 238

3. Of Square WindoAvs ..... 241

4. Of Elat-IIeaded Windows ..... 243

a. Origin of Square-headed WindoAvs . . 244

b. Of Square-headed WindoAvs Avdth Tracery 247

c. Of Square-headed AViiidoAvs Avith Spandrils 251

d. Of Segmental-IIeaded Windows . . 253

5. Of Belfry WindoAVS and Sjrire-Lights . . 256

Additions and Corrections.

To Chapter I. . . . . . . 261

To Chapter II.. . . . . . 274

To Chapter III. ...... 280

Chapter I. Op Geometrical Tracery

§ 1. Introduction.

Among all the beautiful aucl majestic features which are so conspicuous in the architecture of the middle ages, a rank inferior to none must be assigned to the varied and graceful forms of its window-tracery. The window itself, in the prominent position which it holds in the most perfect forms of Gothic art, is a feature peculiar to that style of architecture. In the Grecian, and even the Italian, style, the window can hardly be looked upon as anything but an intruder; a necessary evil, which, on account of physical requirements, cannot be dispensed with, but which it is extremely difficult to bring into harmony with the rest of the building. Even in the best Italian Churches, for in secular erections the fault is hardly so conspicuous, the windows are for the most part little better than eyesores. In Romanesque architecture the windows enter far more into the general composition of the building, and are often highly ornamental features ; but they are still comparatively small and unimportant, and are perhaps the last thing taken into account in judging of the merit of a design. It was reserved for the Gothic architect to assign to a portion of his building so physically indispensable, its

B

OF GEOMETRICAL TKACERY.

fitting and natural place as the most iinpoitant and characteristic feature of the exterior. Instead of the few and small openings pierced through the massy walls of a Romanesque Church, we now see the wide and soaring window, spreading the airy net-work of tracery from buttress to buttress ; no part of the structure enters more thoroughly into the general design, none has more eompletely imbibed the spirit of the style. The large traceried window is essentially and distinctively Gothic ; and there is no greater triinn})h of that glorious style than the complete ascendancy thus gained over a feature which had been the least satisfactory point of all that preceded it. What had hitherto been little more than an unmanageable necessity, now becomes an harmonious part of the design, and one pre-eminently admitting tlie highest degree of sinqilicity and grace, of variety and richness, allowed by the most perfect form of art w'hich the wmrld has seen.

Trom this it follow's, almost as a necessary consequence, that the traces of each successive change to wdiich Gothic art submitted should be found deeply impressed upon this chosen ofispring of the style. And an examination of existing specimens will shew that it was in the tracery of windows that the principles of each successive form of Gothic architecture developed themselves more fully and clearly, and especially much earlier, than in any other part of the building. The wundow is a more strict unity, its tracery has greater physical independence than any other part, and its whole nature gives freer scope for the exercise of a luxuriant imagination than vault or columu or doorway. Every one must have observed that it is to the wdndows that the novice in architecture mainly looks in his endeavour to grapple with the outw'ard distinctions of successive styles ; and it is to the wdndows that the more advanced observer chiefly appeals as the exponents of their