CHAPTER V

THE ANALYTICAL ARGUMENT
We must arrive at the same conclusion, if we consider the subject in an analytical way. For example : suppose a person, hitherto unacquainted not only with the general peculiarities of Christian churches, but also with Chris- tianity itself, were to enter a cathedral ; or (which will be a fairer case) were to visit a Catholic country, and examine its churches as a whole, would he not, if possessed of only ordinary intelligence, observe that the cross form, for example, was of most common occurrence, and, in the case of the larger buildings, was perhaps the only plan adopted ? And would he not then naturally inquire why there should be this marked preference for a form, in itself inconvenient for purposes of hearing or seeing,* and open to great mechanical objections, such as the almost resistless pressure of the four arms on the piers which stand 'at the angles of intersection ? But if he learnt that the religion for which these temples were designed was that of the Cross, he would at once see the propriety of this ground plan, and would confidently and truly conclude that this form was chosen in order to bring the Cross, by this symbolism, vividly and constantly before the eyes of the worshippers. To deny intended symbolism, in the case of such a person, would
* That is, a Catholic arrangement of the church being presumed.
Ixii Introductoiy Essay
clearly be atsurd : shall it be less obvious to us ? Our traveller would probably, being satisfied on this point, examine these buildings more closely. He would find an altar raised conspicuously above the surrounding level ; and for this he might discover a practical reason ; but why in so many cases (so many as well nigh to make a rule) are the steps either three or some multiple of three? Surely the fundamental doctrine of the Holy Trinity would, if explained to him, sufficiently account for this all but universal arrangement. Why, again, in every case does a screen separate one part of the church from the other ? When our inquirer learns the principle of the separation of laity and clergy, this arrangement also will be at once intelligible and figurative. How unreasonable would the position of the font by the door appear to him, till he learnt the symbolical reason for its being placed there ! And we may here remark that the practice of the last generation in removing old fonts, or using basins for substitutes, or in placing new fonts, near the altar, shows clearly enough that convenience and utility would have pointed out a very different place for the font from what is assigned by the canon, on symbolical grounds ; grounds adduced in this case, as it would seem, to give weight to a decision so clearly op- posed to all merely practical and obvious reasons. Again, the marked deviation of the orientation of the chancel from that of the nave, would be quite inexpli- cable till the beautiful and affecting symbolism of the arrangement were pointed out.
Again, it has not been left merely to the meditative ecclesiologist to observe that Christian architecture has as decided a characteristic of verticality, as Pagan architecture had of horizontalism. A mere artist could not fail of marking the contrast between Beauvais and the temples of Paestum. The contrast must then be ad-
TJie Analytical Argument Ixiii
mitted : but how must we explain it ? Surely no accident could have developed the grovelling Pagan into the aspiring Gothic. What mechanical reasons could produce Westminster from even the Parthenon ? But is not the phenomenon explained when we see in towering pier, spire, and pinnacle, the symbolical exhi- bition of that religion which alone aspires to things above, nay more, the figurative commemoration of that Resurrection itself, which alone originates, and only justifies, the same heavenward tendency. But if this be true ; if these acknowledged peculiarities in Christian architecture be utterly unintelligible on any other sup- position than this of a symbolical meaning, surely it is not unreasonable to receive so ready a solution of the difficulty : and, the principle admitted, why may not reasons of the same figurative nature be .issigned for other arrangements, in themselves on any other interpre- tation not only meaningless but obviously useless or absurd ?