arches, and buttresses, is freed from every unnecessary encumbrance of wall, and is rendered as light in all its parts as is compatible with strength in a system whose stability depends not upon any inert massiveness, except in the outermost abutments, but upon a logical adjustment of active parts whose opposing forces produce a perfect equilibrium. It is thus a system of balanced thrusts, as opposed to the former system of inert stability. Gothic architecture is indeed much more than such a constructive system, but it is this primarily and always. And so fundamental and far-reaching is this mode of construction as the distinctive principle of Gothic, that it may be taken as a rule that wherever we find it developed there we have a Gothic building, even though the decorative system connected with it may retain many of the Romanesque characteristics. And, on the other hand, wherever this principle of thrust and counterthrust is wanting there we have not Gothic, however freely the pointed arch may be used, and however widely the ornamental details may differ from Romanesque types.
The evolution of the Gothic system was gradual, and the final results were unforeseen when the first steps were taken. This is evident from the characteristics exhibited by the transitional monuments which remain. The first steps were taken early. Indeed, the beginnings of Gothic antedate considerably the period which is usually assumed as that of transition. The earliest functional grouping of supports in the churches of Northern Italy was, it would seem, the real beginning; though it was a beginning that was destined to remain unfruitful in its own locality. But there is reason to suppose that the Lombard buildings [1] of the early eleventh
- ↑ By Lombard buildings it is not necessary to understand buildings erected by the Lombards. The existence at the present time of work actually wrought by Lombard hands has been clearly disproved, and the designation Lombard, as applied to the churches of the eleventh century in North Italy, has been, therefore, objected to. But the style of these buildings is undoubtedly the result of Lombard influence, though the date of their erection was subsequent to the Lombard occupation. The conclusion reached by Sig. Quintino and others who have treated the subject, that the architecture in question is derived wholly from Roman and Byzantine sources, is certainly incorrect. For nowhere in either Roman or Byzantine design is there any precedent for that functional grouping of shafts and piers that is met with in buildings like San Michele of Pavia, and St. Ambrogio of Milan. The fact would seem to be that the Lombard influence upon architecture was strong enough to outlive the period of actual Lombard sojourn. After two hundred years of settlement the influence of such a people could hardly fail to have become in a measure permanent.
