| — | Width in clear of Walls. | Length in clear. | Width of Nave from c to c of Columns. | ||
| feet. in. | feet. | feet. in. | |||
| Toledo[A] | 178 0 | 395 | 50 6 | ||
| Milan[B] | 186 0 | 395 | 50 6 | ||
| Cologne[B] | 130 0 | 405 | 44 0 | ||
| Paris[A] | 110 0 | 400 | 48 0 | ||
| Bourges[A] | 128 0 | 370 | 49 0 | ||
| Troyes[A] | 124 0 | 395 | 50 0 | ||
| Chartres[C] | 100 0 | 430 | 50 0 | ||
| Amiens[D] | 100 0 | 435 | 49 0 | ||
| Reims[C] | 95 0 | 430 | 48 0 | ||
| Lincoln[C] | 80 0 | 468 | 45 0 | ||
| York[C] | 106 0 | 486 | 52 0 | ||
| Westminster[C] | 75 0 | 505 | 38 0 | ||
A: Five aisles, exclusive of chapels between buttresses. | |||||
[232] The north-west tower only was built, and this long after the original foundation of the church (i.e. circa 1380-1440). Blas Ortiz, speaking of the foundation of the Mozarabic chapel at the west end of the opposite (south) aisle, says it was placed “in extrema Templi parte, ubi cœptæ turris fundamenta surgebant.” The four western bays of the nave are no doubt rather later in date than the rest of the church, but they follow the same general design, and are not distinguishable on the ground-plan. My ground-plan of this enormous cathedral is deficient in some details; but my readers will pardon any departure from absolute accuracy in every part, when they consider how much useless labour the representation of every detail entails in such a work, and how impossible it would be for any one without a great deal of time at his disposal to do more than I have done. I am not aware that any plan of this cathedral has ever before been published. I omitted to examine a detached chapel—that I believe of the “Reyes Nuevos”—but with this exception, I think my plan shows the whole of the old portion of the work quite accurately.
[233] The account given by Blas Ortiz (who wrote his description of the cathedral in the time of Philip II.) ought to be given here, because it seems to show that in his time the roofs were not entirely covered with stone, but, as at present, with tile roofs in some parts above the stone. “Ecclesiæ testudines,” he says, “candidæ sunt, muniunt eas, et ab imbribus aliisque incommodis protegunt tabulata magna (sive contiguationes) artificiose composita, fulcris statura hominis altioribus suffulta, tectaque partim tegulis, partim lateribus ac planis lapidibus. Turriculæ lapideæ in modum pyramidum erectæ, e singulis (inquam) pilis per totum ædificium exeunt, quæ sacram Basilicam extrinsecus pulcherrimam faciunt.”—Descrip. Temp. Toletani, cap. xxi.
[234] M. Viollet le Duc’s articles in the Dictionnaire de l’Architecture Française on the planning of French churches are extremely valuable, as indeed is all that he writes; and I take the opportunity afforded me by the aid which he has thus given me in the consideration of this question, to express the gratitude which I suppose every student of Christian art feels for what he has done towards promoting its right study.
[235] That ingenious form of vault invented by modern plasterers, in which the transverse arch gives all the data for the shape of the diagonal rib, which is consequently neither a true pointed arch, nor a true curve of any kind, is, of course, the worst of all forms; and it might be thought unnecessary to utter a protest against it, were it not that we see some of our best modern buildings disfigured beyond measure by its introduction. Nothing is simpler than a good vault. The best rule for it is to make a good diagonal arch and a good transverse arch, and the filling in of the cells is pretty sure to take care of itself.
[236] I refer my readers to Chapter XX. for an account of the curious likeness between this plan and one by Wilars de Honecort.
[238] Toledo Pintoresca, p. 87.
[239] I take the height of nave from Blas Ortiz. He gives the dimensions of the church in Spanish feet as follows:—Length, 404; breadth, 202; height, 116 feet.