ADOLF REINLE (1963-64)
The reconstruction of Adolf Reinle (fig. 137), because of
his radically different interpretation of the axial explanatory
title of the Church, occupies a position entirely apart from
those of any of the previous students of the Plan. Translating
the axial title of the Church "AB ORIENTE AD OCCIDENTE[M]
PED .CC." in the sense of "THIS PLAN IS DRAWN
AT THE SCALE OF 1:200," he felt himself under no compulsion
to reduce the Church to a length of 200 feet, as so
many others had tried to do. He rather endows it with its
full length of 300 feet. However, in adjustment to the title
which designates the intercolumnar interstices of the
arcades of the nave to be 12 feet, Reinle consequently
increased the number of arcades from nine to fifteen.
Reinle draws support for this interpretation from the
observation that arcades of a span of 20 feet (6.8 m.) are
not known to have existed in any of the large colonnaded
basilicas of the first millennium.[207]
This being as it is, he
concludes "we must assume that the columnar order of the
Church of the Plan of St. Gall is rendered in a schematic
manner in logical explication of the system of squares which
controls the Plan of the Church."[208]
He categorically rejects
any connection of this geometricity of the Plan of the
Church with the square schematism of the Romanesque.
[209]
This is too simple a way, in my opinion, to explain a
complex historical phenomenon. Columnar interstices of
20 feet, it is true, are not attested for the period in which
the Plan was drawn. But this does not mean that such a
solution was not within the grasp of an imaginative
Carolingian architect. Our analysis of the scale and
construction method used in designing the Plan[210]
has
shown that the author of this scheme proceeded with an
acute awareness of the dimensional realities involved in
whatever he drew. It is inconceivable, in my opinion, that
an architect whose punctilious observance of spatial needs
is reflected in the dimensioning of even the smallest detail
throughout the entire width and length of the Plan, should
have reverted to a radically different method of rendering
when he drew the Church of the Monastery and should
have spaced the columns at a distance of 20 feet when in
fact he meant them to be placed at intervals of 12 feet. A
consistent interpretation of the dimensional layout of the
Plan permits no other conclusion than that the draftsman
meant what he drew. Nor is there evidence to presume
that the instruction to make the columnar interstices 12 feet
wide stemmed from fears that arcades spanning 20 feet
would be a constructional hazard. Our reconstruction (figs.
107-110) demonstrates this point clearly enough. The
shortening of the arcade spans was simply an inevitable
consequence of the reduction of the overall length of the
Church from 300 to 200 feet. It dealt a deadly blow to the
square schematism as applied to the nave of the Church—
one of the draftsman's favorite and most original ideas—
but it was the most reasonable way out of the dilemma
caused by the overall reduction of the length of the Church.
By reducing the spatial depth of each bay, the corrective
title permitted the retention of the original number of altar
stations, while at the same time it safeguarded the original
concept in those parts of the Church where a reduction
would have impaired the primary function of the sanctuary,
the conduct of the sacred services in transept and choir.
