>I just thought I'd have to jump in on the "architecture" discussion.  The
>bottom line is that later reflection has placed "theological" meaning on the
>space.  In other words "spirituality follows form."  

This is an important point and quite correct.  The discovery of
theological/spiritual meaning in things otherwise of ordinary origins was a
common (and important) aspect of Christian thinking from the earliest
times.  One could site a plethora of examples, and even the ancient Hebrews
were wont to discover the Hand of God in ordinary natural phenomena.  But I
digress...

Gothic churches,
>particularly the large cathedrals were the logical development from their
>Romanesque predecessors which were based on the early Christian Basilica
plan.
>The extended choir was a development in monestery chruches that made its way
>into parish churches as well, particularly in England it seems, and then into
>Episcopal (and some Lutheran) chruch buildings in the U.S.  

I would also add some Methodist churches and of course, Catholic churches.
Although the East experimented with the basilica plan, the centrally
planned style characterized by San Vitale (Ravenna) and Hosios Lukos, et
al. became the dominant form there.  The use of the greek cross capped with
a dome ideally suited the Eastern liturgical and iconographical scheme,
especially after Iconoclasm and Nicea II (787).  The Palatine Chapel of
Charlemagne at Aachen is an example of a North European adaptation of this
plan.
>
<snip> 
The only real change down through the centuries was the addition of
>the extended choir, begun in Romanesque churches and developed fully in
Gothic
>structures.  

I would add the transcept and west entrance to the list of real changes.
The Greco-Roman basilica was entered on the long side, as were many of the
double apsed Romanesque churches (Mainz Dom, St. Micheal's at Hildesheim).
The transcept appears in an early form at Old St. Peter's, but was absent
in the Constantinian churches of the Holy Land and most of North Europe
until First Romanesque (10th century).  The monastic "Plan of St. Gall"
includes transcepts, but not as fully developed as those at, for instance,
St. Sernin.  The original basilica had no transcept.

The major innovations of Gothic architecture was the development
>of the pointed arch which allowed wider open spaces and much larger windows.

Larger windows in the sense of wider were a uniquely English innovation
(English Gothic was called Perpendicular Style).  Some churches on the
continent also had wide windows, but they invialbly have English influence.
 The English also built wider naves and used elaborate fan vaulting.  The
three characteristics of Gothic were the ribbed vault, flying buttresses,
and the pointed arch (used initially on the continent to make churches
taller).  Of course, there are national variations of this, but again, I
digress...

>It should also be noted that Renaissance and Baroque chruches are generally
>based on the same basic floor plan as well, differing mainly in architectural
>details.

Very true - in fact, it was not uncommon for bishops, chapters and princes,
esp. in Catholic territories in Germany, to simply re-dress Gothic
structures with a Baroque or Rococco veneer.  One can even still see the
remnants of the (now walled up) gothic choir ambulatory in several churches.

>
>We really owe our church plans to the ancient Romans whose basialicas
>(generally used for law courts and other civic activities).  The Early
>Christians did not choose Roman temple architecture because 1.) it was
>associated with the pagan cult, but more importantly 2.) Roman (and Greek)
>temples were not designed for corporate worship.  While often very
impressive,
>Roman temples did not have huge interior spaces compared to the exterior size
>of the building.  They didn't need to.  The basilica, on the other hand, was
>designed for gatherings and thus made a good model for early churches.

The Pantheon in Rome would be an exception to this.  The Romans prefered a
more open interior for their temples and public buildings than the Greeks,
which is the reason for developing the arch and dome.  And many former
temples were converted into churches (and in some cases old city gates
[Trier}). But, as is stated, there was a resistance to using these
essentially unsuitable environments for the reasons stated.  

Of course, one could delve into the iconographical transition from imperial
basilica usage to Christian basilica use, but perhaps that is a tale for
another day...

And this is certianly more than anyone wanted to know!

In nomine Domine

George R. Hoelzeman
[log in to unmask]





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%