



Produced by Chris Curnow, Diane Monico, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)











THE

SEVEN PERIODS

OF

ENGLISH ARCHITECTURE.




THE
SEVEN PERIODS
OF
ENGLISH ARCHITECTURE
DEFINED AND ILLUSTRATED.

BY
EDMUND SHARPE, M.A.,
ARCHITECT.

_TWENTY STEEL ENGRAVINGS AND WOODCUTS._

THIRD EDITION.

[Illustration]

E. & F. N. SPON, 125, STRAND, LONDON.
NEW YORK: 12, CORTLANDT STREET.
1888.




PREFACE.


"We have been so long accustomed to speak of our National Architecture
in the terms, and according to the classification bequeathed to us by
Mr. Rickman, and those terms and that classification are so well
understood and have been so universally adopted, that any proposal to
supersede the one, or to modify the other, requires somewhat more than
a mere apology. To disturb a Nomenclature of long standing, to set
aside terms in familiar use, and to set up others in their place which
are strange, and therefore at first unintelligible, involves an
interruption of that facility with which we are accustomed to
communicate with one another on any given subject, that is only to be
justified by reasons of a cogent and satisfactory nature.

"The sufficiency of Mr. Rickman's Nomenclature and Divisions, and their
suitableness at the time and for the purpose for which they were made,
are best evidenced by the fact that, although the attempts to supersede
them have been both numerous and persevering, they have remained for
nearly half a century the principal guide to the Architectural Student;
and Mr. Rickman's 'Attempt to discriminate the Styles of Architecture
in England,' is still the Text-book from which the greater part of the
popular works of the present day have been compiled.

"In referring, however, to these attempts to supersede Mr. Rickman's
system, it is proper to remark that one observation applies to the
whole of them;--although they propose to change the Nomenclature of his
different styles, or to subdivide them, his main division of English
Architecture into four great Periods or Styles, is adopted by all, and
still remains undisturbed. No point, therefore, has been hitherto
proposed to be gained by these alterations, beyond a change of name;
and this may be taken as a sufficient reason why none of these attempts
have been successful: men are not willing to unlearn a term with which
they are familiar, however inappropriate, in order to learn another,
which, after all, means the same thing.

"Although, however, Mr. Rickman's simple division of Church
Architecture into four Periods, or Styles, may perhaps have been the
one best suited to his time, and to the elementary state of the
knowledge of the subject possessed by the best informed Archaeologists
of his day, it may with propriety be questioned how far such a division
is suited to the exigencies of writers of the present day, or to the
present advanced tastes of knowledge on the subject.

"Simplicity was doubtless the object Mr. Rickman had in view in his
division of English Architecture into four Styles only. This is a
recommendation, however, which can hardly be said to hold good at the
present day: it behoves us to consider well, perhaps more especially at
the present moment, whether Mr. Rickman's system fulfils all the
conditions essential to one calculated for popular and universal use;
and whether we should therefore seek to confirm and to perpetuate it,
or whether the time has not arrived for the adoption of a more detailed
and accurate division of the long and noble series of buildings which
contain the History of our National Architecture from the Heptarchy to
the Reformation."[A]

No one can enter into an inquiry of this kind without eventually coming
to the conclusion that there are two large classes of Buildings
containing distinctive marks of peculiarity of character, which find no
place in Mr. Rickman's system, but which nevertheless, from the number
and importance of their examples, are pre-eminently entitled to
separate classification. These two classes are those to which the
buildings enumerated at pp. 24, and 31, 32 respectively belong, and
which cannot, without circumlocution, be described in any of the terms
prescribed by Mr. Rickman.

As regards the earlier of these two classes, the extent to which these
distinctive peculiarities of detail exist, will perhaps at first
scarcely be credited, and proofs of a much more extensive and
satisfactory character than are contained in the following pages, or
could be looked for in an elementary work of this nature, will probably
be required before its title to separate classification will be
universally conceded.

As regards the later of these classes, the same difficulty does not
exist. Mr. Rickman divided the whole of the buildings of Pointed
Architecture into three Styles or Classes, which he denominated "Early
English," "Decorated," "Perpendicular." The titles of the two last he
professed to derive from the character of their windows, conceiving, no
doubt justly, that no part of a Gothic building exhibits peculiarities
of Style in so prominent and characteristic a manner as its windows. In
strict accordance with this rule, which may be assumed to be a correct
and valuable one, it has already been shown,[B] that had Mr. Rickman
gone a step further and classed the whole of the buildings of Pointed
Architecture according to the forms of their Windows under _four_
heads, instead of _three_, he would have obtained a classification
equally simple, but more intelligible and convenient; he would have
obviated much that is confused and indefinite, and therefore perplexing
to the Architectural Student, in his description of buildings which
belong to the class to which we are now referring, and would have
enabled us to compare the buildings of our own Country with those of
corresponding character, and nearly contemporaneous date on the
Continent, in a manner that would have established an analogy between
them, which, according to the present classification, has no apparent
existence.

The inability to describe, or speak of any of the buildings belonging
to either of these two classes, including some of the finest in the
kingdom, otherwise than as examples of an intermediate and anomalous
character, exhibiting the peculiarities partly of one style and partly
of another, but belonging specifically to neither, must be admitted to
be a serious defect in all hitherto recognised systems of Architectural
Nomenclature; and there are probably few Architecturalists who have not
frequently felt the inconvenience arising from the want of more
explicit and definite terms than at present exist, by means of which
to describe the buildings of these two classes.

It is to remedy these defects, and to provide for this want, that the
following division of the History of our National Architecture into
Seven Periods instead of Four, is now formally proposed, under the
belief that some such Division as this, by whatever terms it may be
characterised, will sooner or later force itself into universal
adoption. With respect to the terms themselves it would be unreasonable
to expect the same unanimity; the following considerations, however,
would seem to bring their selection within narrow limits. It would
appear, in the first place, unadvisable to designate any of the later
Periods, except the last, by any of the terms hitherto in use, as
tending probably to confusion and misapprehension, from the difficulty
of limiting their signification to the extent proposed in the minds of
those who have been accustomed to use them in a more ample sense: and
to retain the last, if the others be abandoned, and a more appropriate
or analogous term can be found, appears to be still less desirable.

At the same time it is much to be desired that the terms we use should
be not altogether strange, and, if possible, self-explanatory. These
two conditions are such as to render it difficult to find terms such as
to be in all respects perfectly satisfactory; and perhaps no system of
Nomenclature could be found so perfect as to be entirely free from
objection.

The reasons which have caused the adoption of the terms made use of in
the following system, are fully given in their proper place, and it
only remains for the Author to notice that the terms "Curvilinear" and
"Rectilinear" were first proposed by a writer in the "British Critic,"
some years ago, as a substitute for Mr. Rickman's terms "Decorated" and
"Perpendicular;" and in a sense, therefore, as regards the former of
these terms, essentially different from that in which it is here
proposed to be applied. The rest must be more or less familiar to all
who have been of late engaged in the study.

The Author desires to take this opportunity of acknowledging his
obligations to Mr. T. Austin, by whom all the subjects, with one
exception, have been measured and drawn from the buildings themselves;
as well as to Mr. G. B. Smith, by whom the whole have been engraved on
steel, for the accuracy and appearance of the principal illustrations.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote A: The preceding paragraphs, distinguished by inverted
commas, formed part of the introduction to a Paper "On the Geometrical
Period of English Church Architecture," read by the Author at the
Lincoln meeting of the Archaeological Institute in July 1848.]

[Footnote B: "Treatise on the Rise and Progress of Window Tracery," by
E. Sharpe, M.A. Van Voorst, London.]




CONTENTS.


                         PAGE
  CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION               1


  CHAPTER II.

CLASSIFICATION             3


  CHAPTER III.

COMPARTMENTS              13


  CHAPTER IV.

SAXON PERIOD              15


  CHAPTER V.

NORMAN PERIOD             17


  CHAPTER VI.

TRANSITIONAL PERIOD       21


  CHAPTER VII.

LANCET PERIOD             25


  CHAPTER VIII.

GEOMETRICAL PERIOD        29


  CHAPTER IX.

CURVILINEAR PERIOD        33


  CHAPTER X.

RECTILINEAR PERIOD        37




LIST OF PLATES.


NORMAN PERIOD.

_Exterior_      ELY CATHEDRAL              Nave.

_Interior_       "      "                    "

_Exterior_      PETERBOROUGH CATHEDRAL     Choir.

_Interior_           "          "            "


TRANSITIONAL PERIOD.

_Exterior_      RIPON CATHEDRAL            Choir.

_Interior_        "       "                  "


LANCET PERIOD.

_Exterior_      ELY CATHEDRAL              Presbytery.

_Interior_       "      "                      "

_Exterior_      LINCOLN CATHEDRAL          Nave.

_Interior_         "        "                "

_Exterior_         "        "              Choir.

_Interior_         "        "                "


GEOMETRICAL PERIOD.

_Exterior_      LINCOLN CATHEDRAL          Presbytery.

_Interior_         "        "                   "

_Exterior_      LICHFIELD CATHEDRAL        Nave.

_Interior_          "         "              "


CURVILINEAR PERIOD.

_Exterior_      ELY CATHEDRAL              Choir.

_Interior_       "      "                    "


RECTILINEAR PERIOD.

_Exterior_      WINCHESTER CATHEDRAL       Nave.

_Interior_          "          "             "




THE SEVEN PERIODS
OF
ENGLISH ARCHITECTURE.




CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION.


To present at a single glance a comprehensive view of the History of
English Church Architecture from the Heptarchy to the Reformation, and
to do this in a manner, which, without taxing too seriously the memory
of the student, may enable him to fix in his mind the limits, and the
general outline of the inquiry he is about to enter upon, is the object
of the present treatise.

Instead therefore of entering, as is usual in elementary works of this
nature, into a detailed account of all the parts of an Ecclesiastical
structure, a certain portion only of such a building has for this
purpose been selected, and so exhibited in the garb in which it
appeared at successive intervals of time, as to present to the reader a
means of comparison that will enable him readily to apprehend the
gradual change of form through which it passed from the Eleventh to the
Sixteenth Centuries, and at once to recognise the leading
characteristics of the several Periods into which it is here proposed
to divide the History of our National Architecture. Having thus fixed
these leading characteristics in his mind, he will then be in a
condition to follow us hereafter, if he pleases, into the detail of the
whole subject, and to become familiar with those niceties of
distinction, the detection of which--escaping, as they do, the eye of
the general observer--contributes so materially to the enjoyment of the
study, and a perfect acquaintance with which is so absolutely essential
to a correct understanding of the true History of the Art.

That this mode of approaching the study of this subject is a convenient
one, will probably be admitted by those who may remember the
difficulties they encountered, in their early attempts to acquire a
general conception of the scheme of the History of Church Architecture,
as given in most of the manuals now in use; and the complexity of
detail in which they found themselves immediately involved on the very
threshold of their inquiry.

It has been the practice in most elementary works on Church
Architecture to derive the illustrations of the subject, indifferently
from the smaller and the larger buildings of the Kingdom; and by
implication to assign an equal authority to both. It will be readily
admitted, however, that the History of an Art is to be gathered from
its principal Monuments, and not from those the design or execution of
which may have been entrusted to other than the ablest masters of the
Period: in the choice, therefore, of the examples which have been
selected to illustrate the series of changes which are described in the
following pages, reference has been made principally to the great
Cathedral, Abbey, and Collegiate Churches of the Kingdom, and
occasionally only to some of the larger Parish Churches whose size or
importance would seem to bring them under the above denomination.




CHAPTER II.

CLASSIFICATION.


Church Architecture in England, from its earliest existence down to the
Sixteenth Century, was in a state of constant progress, or transition,
and this progress appears to have been carried on, with certain
exceptions in different parts of the country, very nearly
simultaneously. It follows from this circumstance, first, That it is
impossible to divide our National Architecture correctly into any
number of distinct _Orders_ or _Styles_; and secondly, That any
Division of its History into a given number of _Periods_, must
necessarily be an arbitrary one. It is nevertheless absolutely
essential for the purpose of conveniently describing the long series of
noble monuments which remain to us, that we should adopt some system of
chronological arrangement, which may enable us to group, and to
classify them in a distinct and intelligible manner: and although no
broad lines of demarcation in this connected series are discernible--so
gradual was the change--yet so rapid and so complete was it also, that
a period of fifty years did not elapse without a material alteration in
the form and fashion of every detail of a building.

Now it will be readily conceived that, even in the midst of this
continual change, certain favourite forms would remain in use longer
than others; and that this circumstance may possibly afford us the
opportunity of which we are in search; and enable us in the adoption
of any such arbitrary Division so to define and to characterise the
Architecture of its different Periods, as to render this Historical
Survey and our future descriptions sufficiently intelligible.

One principal Division of Church Architecture has been recognised and
adopted by all who have studied and written on the subject; that,
namely, which separates Ecclesiastical Buildings into two classes, in
the first or earlier of which the _circular arch_ was exclusively
employed; and in the second or later, the _pointed arch_ alone was
used. To the former of these two Classes, the term ROMANESQUE has been
given, and to the latter, the term GOTHIC.

This division is so simple, and at the same time so strongly marked,
that without entering into a discussion as to the value or propriety of
the terms themselves, and contenting ourselves with the fact that they
are already in general use, we can have little hesitation in adopting
this primary division as the groundwork of our system.

At the same time, it is manifest, that, for purposes of description, it
is not sufficiently minute; and that a further subdivision is
necessary: it is also clear, that it excludes a large class of
buildings that were erected during the period which intervened between
the first appearance of the pointed arch, and the final disappearance
of the circular arch.

As regards the buildings of the Romanesque Period, no subdivision of
them can be more satisfactory than that which has already been for some
time in use, and which divides them into those which were built before
and after the Conquest, and designates them accordingly SAXON and
NORMAN.

As regards the buildings of that Intermediate Period just mentioned, to
none can the term TRANSITIONAL so aptly be applied as to those erected
under influences created by that remarkable contest between two great
antagonistic principles, which, after having been carried on for a
period of nearly fifty years, terminated in a complete revolution in
the style of building at the end of the Twelfth Century.

Lastly, as regards the Gothic Period, no subdivision of it appears to
be so natural and convenient, as that which is suggested by the four
principal changes of form through which the Window passed from the
Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Centuries.

These changes have been fully illustrated by the author in a former
work,[C] and will be therefore only briefly recapitulated here.

For half a century or more, after the disappearance of the circular
arch, the window appeared under a form, which from its general
resemblance to a _lancet_, in its length, breadth, and principal
proportions, rather than from any uniform acuteness in the shape of its
head, led to the universal application of that term to all the windows
of this Period. This observation applies equally to the window whether
