Talk:Cathedral floorplan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I think that perhaps we need a specialist to do a bit of re-writing. Perhaps something to indicate that the gothic is not the epitome (or is only arguably the epitome) of cathedral building. There's also stuff here that I'm not sure is correct -- are all cathedrals cruciform? if they are, are they all cruciform with a nave longer than the transept? I seem to remember from a couple of classes that this is not true. This is a great start, and IIRC, Suger's plan of St. Denis is considered the "how to" of cathedral building -- after St. Denis. But there are lots of cathedrals built before and after that may not fit the model. JHK

Yep - this is problematic. The original article was an import from Britannica and written by, I think, Ralph Adams Cram or someone of his school. I'll get to work on it - damn you Julie for tempting me! MichaelTinkler

I think that using some sort of cross shape for cathedrals has been the norm for a long time. At least some of them had the four 'branches' from the center of equal length, with the entire eastern one reserved for the sanctuary. Part of the reason for having so much space in the sanctuary was so that all the 'supplies' could be kept there, i.e. spare candles, oil, incense, wicks, etc. Wesley

No doubt there, Wesley -- but AFAIK, those cross shapes could also be short arms going around even a circular transept -- that's why I tempted Michael back -- I think he's the only real art/architectural historian we've got -- not to mention being a medievalist and teacher of art history surveys to boot!
Michael, think of it not as a temptation, but as a moral imperative! Jules


No, the nave didn't even usually run the entire length to the transept; in Westminster Abbey, for example, the transept cuts between the choir and the sanctuary. St. Denis is non-standard in a number of ways, like the two-lane ambulatory, but it was the first Gothic church, and you have to admit that Suger did a pretty good job of inventing the thing.
Yes, they were always cruciform, but you have to use a little imagination sometimes to see it. At Notre Dame, for example, the "arms" of the cross are only a gap of one column in the two rows running on each side of the E-W axis.
But the article on cathedrals was way too esoteric for anyone who just wants to know the basic parts of the building, and the links to them weren't there yet. So I thought I'd put this there to fill the void in the meantime, and I didn't want to make it too complicated, just cover the definitions. I was toying with the idea of preparing floor plans like this for the rest of the great cathedrals but figured there wasn't enough interest out there to justify it. -- isis

Isis, no criticism was meant -- In point of fact, however, we do have a specialist "on staff" as it were, and I thought it made sense to get him to take a look and make any clarifications he thought helpful. It's one of the nice things about having been here a while -- we tend to get to know each other's strengths -- especially if they're listed on the user pages. For example, if I saw an article on an animal that could use some work, I'd probably point it out to Vicki or Karen, because they've done a lot of those. Math-wise, I tend to point out articles to Axel, since he's a mathemetician. In the same way, people who know what I do tend to ask my opinion on things historical. JHK


Not to worry -- I didn't take it as criticism but as an invitation to a discussion. I wrote it partly to get a reaction from whoever here does specialize in that area, and when you all started talking about it in front of me, as it were, I figured it was okay to join in. -- isis

Absolutely! Glad there was no misunderstanding. The semi-resident art history person is user: MichaelTinkler. He's not often around, but knows more about art history, Christianity, and most things late antique and medieval than almost anyone I know. JHK

First pass. Lots to do. MichaelTinkler

St. Denis - not a cathedral; cruciformity - nope - check Bourges, for one - high gothic, no transept at all in original plan. 'rood screen' - not a term used on the Continent, which is where most Gothic is. apses - more common than chevets in general architecture, though indeed not common in 'gothic'. MichaelTinkler

Of course, NEITHER of these is a Cathedral. As the cathedral article points out, a frequent misusage is to apply 'cathedral' to any large church. This article is about generic large gothic churches - in which case it probably needs to be consolidated more firmly with gothic architecture and less oriented to cathedral. MichaelTinkler

cathedrals and abbeys[edit]

Firstly, I think this article is one of the most concise and clear explanations of a topic usually well beyond most non-architects or church historians and often rather dull. I have a few remarks on minor details and feedback comments left by other readers.

Presently, St. Denis is, in fact, a cathedral with a bishop. This is a recent development, however, and due to an administative need to subdivide a burgoning bishopric. As most people know, the building was designed and supervised by an abbot and remained an abbey until the time of the French Revolution. I highly recommend anyone visiting Paris to take a few hours and a quick train ride to visit St. Denis. You won't find the crowds of Notre Dame there.

Concerning the absence of a transcept at Bourges. My memory may fail here, but I recall that only the enormous choir was actually built before funds ran out. Thus, the lack of a transcept and nave doesn't necessarily mean that these elements were not intended in the original, possibly cruciform, design. At Salisbury (the present cathedral), as I recall, the sanctuary and some of the choir were largely completed and in use before the more western portions, but fortunately in this case, the rest was finished for us to admire. There are other instances (e.g., Canterbury) where prolonged rebuilding of the nave forced church use into the eastern portions. So although we often take for granted the familiar cross-shaped layout of a cathedral, the course of events sometimes required the buildings to be used with some flexibility.

Rich Mooney

Surely this article should be renamed. As has already been pointed out, these diagrams don't just apply to cathedrals or even to 'great' churches (many largish, but not huge, churches use this pattern). And in my experience, few non-cathedrals are referred to as cathedrals. Usually churches without a cathedra are only called cathedrals if they once did officially have the status. Generally a fairly inaccurate title. 'Church diagram' or 'Church design' would be better. -- Necrothesp 15:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

East-West dyslexia[edit]

Are these diagrams East-West reversed? Altars generally face east. - Nunh-huh 05:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wish they were mapwise, with north at the top. In my paragraph shifting and minor rewrite I thought it was important to present the text in progression from the west end doors to the apse or chevet or whatever. It would be great to have further ground plans (even some cathedrals). Groundplan of St Peters would show that the elements remain, even in a non-gothic structure. Wetman 09:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deeper Meanings[edit]

When I went to Canterbury Cathedral I met a lady there who worked as the archivist and whose family had studied the cathedral for 3 generations. She said that there was a lot of symbolism in the way cathedrals were laid out, right down to the mathematics of the positioning of each individual column and window. That they represented things like the Trinity and the 12 disciples and so on. She mentioned the Golden Ratio, but that was just the starting point for a lot more detailed spiritually based mathematic symbolism. She explained meaning behind the layout at Canterbury in great detail, but now that I come to look up information on the type of thing that she was talking about. There is nothing to be found on the web. She did say it was something that architects are only just discovering now, as it had been forgotten for so long - in fact Canterbury's original layout had been changed when renevations were done in the 18th Century, ruining much of the symmetry. But surely someone must know what she was talking about? Is there anyone who would be qualified to expound on this issue on this page? I think it would be appropriate and very interesting. Amatire 12:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Note that all three images illustrating this article have been long listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and tagged for deletion. Perhaps someone can upload useful GFDL or PD images to replace them? -- Infrogmation 19:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images schedualed for deletion removed. I put a cleanup message on the article, as the text is heavily dependant on references to the images. -- Infrogmation 18:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Until someone can supply PD floor plans, let's put editing this on hold. With new images, the text can easily be tailored to suit them. Can anyone rework abbey and cathedral groundplans to pass muster for PD? The more accurately detailed, the better. --Wetman 18:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The following text that directly refers to deleted images is removed: From intro:

The diagram below represents the floor plan of the Abbey of St.-Denis, showing the parts of a Gothic church. (The black dots are the columns supporting the roof.)
For comparison, the plan of Tewkesbury Abbey has the corresponding parts highlighted in the same colors. (Note: These plans are not drawn to the same scale; they are drawn to be about the same length in the diagram.)

From "Nave" section:

Salisbury Cathedral's choir and nave looking west from the High Altar, through the rood screen

Mikkalai 22:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Diagrams[edit]

If I have time, I'll draw a new diagram for this page. The best resource I've found for reference is [1], with [2] also having some useful information. Does anyone else have anything else (and does anyone have a copy of the old images, now deleted)?

I propose to draw a classic cruxiform church with arcades and aisles in the nave, a narthex/porch, transepts, a pulpit and lectern, a chancel, a semicircular apse, and an altar. Given the wide variety of locations for stuff, I'm open to suggestions as to :

  • where to locate the altar (at the back of the apse, or near the front of the chancel)
  • where to locate the choir (in the transepts, on the flanks of the chancel, or in the crossing before the chancel)
  • where, and how, to draw the chancel screen itself

Any any other suggestions anyone may have. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 3, 2005 20:35 (UTC)

Oh, I should add that I'm going to draw it with a decent graphics tool (Inkscapr) to producing variants for different christian traditions shouldn't be to difficult (providing we keep the basic structure the same, and just move a few bits around). I think a comparative study of the church layouts of catholic, orthodox and protestant churches would be instructive. I'm not knowlegable enough about these to do so without lots of advice as to what to locate where, however. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 3, 2005 20:40 (UTC)
Wait! wait! I feel most strongly that the diagrams (Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance) should reflect actual groundplans, which are widely available, though copyright in their unedited condition. See them by googling (on Image mode) "Romanesque plan" "Gothic plan" "Renaissance plan". The former diagrams (the old images aren't in the page history) consistently colored the relative features of the groundplans (which were all actual structures) with the same color, an excellent visual tool. Including a great classical building (St Peter's Basilica?) colored like the others would demonstrate how the features persist, though the architectural styles are very different.
This is a great project. If only I weren't incompetent to help with the technics!
BTW, relative to chat above, there is no inherent difference in the groundplan between an abbey and a cathedral. An abbey turned cathedral is a minster. The cruciform shape was inherited from the basilica: transepts don't make a cathedral. As many as five or six widely differing floorplans could be integrated with text. --Wetman 3 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

Labeling the diagram[edit]

im not talking about labeling as in nave and all that, but things like what are the large black dots in all in the diagram and the large bold lines branching off of the cathedrals and other such information

Large amount of content removed[edit]

[3] The article is "Cathedral diagram", there is another article Architecture of cathedrals, basilicas and abbey churches (also Church architecture) for which most of the content I removed is relevant. Any content in this article should relate directly to the article name.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the content reinsertment : the reasons are straightforward - the article's title is "cathedral floorplan" - the content removed was not a simple description of the positions of the nave, transcept etc within the floorplan of the cathedral, but included history, etymology etc etc - there are already articles on cathedral arhcitecture eg Architecture_of_cathedrals_and_great_churches and others - any explanatory content about what a nave, choir etc is should go there not there. Also see WP:COATRACK also for an reason not to extend the scope of the article.
Also there are already articles Nave Choir Transcept Apse etc etc - eg just about everything.
Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest the article probably is unncessary - the external links are good, but the content is a duplication of Floor plan - the article also appears to be WP:synthesis eg Dashed lines show the ribs of the vaulting overhead. and similar - I've seen examples were the assertions in the article are not true, though I appreciate the generalisation - in summary the article could be deleted and redirected to floor plan, the only additional information would be the convention that " liturgical east end [is] to the right" - but again this is unreferenced, and simple to demonstrate as not actually true unfortunately. - ie see the commons images.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's not clear why this is about cathedrals, and not churches, monasteries, etc in general - I'm not aware of any big difference in the presentation.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Quire ?[edit]

It seems that the term "quire" is used to describe part of a church or catheral. Within Wikipedia itself, the term is also used without definition; for example, York_Minster initial description has "The minster has [..] a Perpendicular Gothic Quire and [..]"). Here, the term "perpendicular gothic" is a link to the term's definition, but apparently the reader is expected to know what is a quire.

From my (very) limited searching with Google, it seems to be synonymous with "chior", but it would be nice if someone knowledgable would update this page with the correct definition.

FnordMan (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, me bad; just realised that, in archetecture, Quire is actually an alt. spelling of Choir and Wikipedia redirects Quire to Choir. Added an entry in the dictionary to help out other confused people.

FnordMan (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources modified on Cathedral floorplan[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Cathedral floorplan. I managed to add archive links to 1 source, out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cathedral floorplan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cathedral_floorplan&oldid=1217352903"