V.3.1
PRINCIPAL FEATURES
MULTIPLICITY OF FUNCTION
The examples of prehistoric, protohistoric, and early medieval
timber houses reviewed on the preceding pages prove
the existence of a tradition of aisled houses in the Germanic
territories of transalpine Europe whose functional organization
bears a striking resemblance to that of the guest and
service buildings of the Plan of St. Gall. The most conspicuous
trait of this house is its multiplicity of functions.
It is a structure which, by simple shifts of assignment, may
be used exclusively for the accommodation of human beings,
as quarters for humans and animals combined, or simply
as storage space for the harvest. It is a house that can carry
out all these functions simultaneously, alternatingly, or
interchangeably—without sustaining the slightest basic
modification. Van Giffen's excavation of the Iron Age Warf
of Ezinge has shown that this multi-purpose function was
already clearly established by the third century B.C. in the
cluster settlement of layer V (figs. 295-297) of this important
site.
RELATION OF MAIN ROOM TO PERIPHERAL
ROOMS
A second conspicuous typological trait that the St. Gall
house has in common with the northern all-purpose house
is that both have as their principal architectural component
a large rectangular center space, containing the hearth,
which serves as the common living, cooking, and dining
room. The more specialized functions, such as sleeping and
stabling of livestock, are relegated to the narrow spaces
ranged peripherally around it. Thus in the House for
Distinguished Guests (fig. 397) the center space is used as
the "dining hall" of the guests (domus hospitū ad prandendum),
the chambers on the two narrow sides of the house
as "heatable rooms with beds" (caminatae cum lectis), while
the rooms that are attached to the two long sides of the
center hall serve as servants' quarters (cubilia seruitorum)
and as "stables for the horses" (stabula cabballoarum). In
the Hospice for Pilgrims and Paupers (fig. 392) the center
space is designated for use as a "hall for the pilgrims and
paupers" (domus peregrinorum & pauperuėm), while the
outer rooms serve as quarters for the servants (seruientium
mansiones), as "supply room" (camera), and as "cellar"
(cellarium). In the House of the Physicians (fig. 410) the
center space is designated as the room of the physicians
(domus medicorum), while the peripheral rooms are described
as the ward for those who are critically ill (
cubiculum
ualde infirmorum), the quarters of the chief physician
(
mansio medici ipsius), and the pharmaceutical supply room
(
armarium pigmentorum). Again in the House for Servants of
Outlying Estates and for Servants Traveling with the
Emperor's Court (fig. 402), the House for the Fowlkeeper
and his crew (fig. 466), as well as all the buildings that
accommodate livestock and their attendants, except that for
the goats, viz., the sheep (fig. 493), the swine (fig. 491),
cows (fig. 483), foaling mares (fig. 487), and their keepers,
the hearth room in the center is designated as the room for
the servants (
dom' familiae); the common room (
domus
communis); the main room (
ipsa domum); the room for the
swineherds (
domus porcariorum), the room for the cowherds
(
domus armentariorum); and the room of the horse grooms
(
domus equaritiae), respectively—all in the sense of a
common living or gathering room. The outer spaces serve
as "sleeping quarters" for the attendant serfs, shepherds,
goathers, and swineherds (
cubilia custodientiū, cubilia
opilionum, cubilia pastorum) and of course as "stables" for the
various species of animals (
cauil, stabula).
In order to be taken to their stalls the animals had to
be led through the common center room of their keepers.
This holds true not only for buildings specifically devised
for the purpose of housing livestock but also for buildings
of such a highly residential nature as the House for Distinguished
Guests, where the horses, in order to reach
their stables, had to be guided through the common dining
room around the central fire-place, precisely as in the Iron
Age houses of Ezinge, Holland.
I draw special attention to House B of layer V of the
Ezinge Warf, which dates from third century B.C. (fig. 327),
because its shape and general proportions are very similar
to those of the St. Gall house. Its doors are in the long
sides facing each other across the house. The hearth is in
the middle of the center aisle. The animals stand in the
outer aisles, facing the walls—one of them so close to the
hearth that its tail could have fanned the fire. The traffic
pattern is the same: people as well as animals enter the
central hall by crossing one of the aisles and then move to
peripheral spaces reserved for feeding, retreat, or sleep.
OPEN FIRE & SMOKE-HOLE CALL FOR A HOUSE
OPEN TO RIDGE OF ROOF
A third important feature that the St. Gall house shares
with the timbered Germanic all-purpose house is that both
are ground-floor structures. The open fire (locus foci) that
burns in the middle of center floor and the smoke hole (testu)
in the roof above preclude the partition of the inner
space by the insertion of floors or ceilings (figs. 396 and
392). Of all the buildings that can be classified as guest and
service structures, only one has an upper story, viz., the
House for Horses and Oxen (see fig. 474). But there the
draftsman makes sure by the inscription, supra tabulatum,
that it is clearly understood that the space above the stables
for the horses and oxen is taken up by a hayloft. In the
other guest and service buildings no mention is made of an
upper level. This, in the language of the drafter of the Plan,
can only mean that there were no upper levels.
[163]
A last conspicuous trait of this house type is that it was
in general not provided with windows but received its light
from an opening in the roof which also served as smoke
outlet. We shall return to this point in more detail below.
Considering these distinctive similarities, the conclusion
is inescapable that the St. Gall house is a variant of the
Germanic all-purpose house discussed in the preceding
pages. There are some differences, to be sure, but they are
not of a kind that would weaken this conclusion or force
us to qualify it in any essential point.
