The lowest is distinguished by massive simplicity; an effect of solid masonry, the thickness of which is emphasised by the deeply recessed door arches, while its simplicity is finely contrasted with the ordered distribution of the sculptured enrichments. Greater diversity characterises the second horizontal division. The openings present a varied patterning of light and shade, while the arcading lends a lightness of effect, echoing also the ordered repetition of the band of figures below, and at the same time involving variety according as the arcade is seen against the sky or is felt as a breastwork of the towers. Lastly, there is a reassertion of the vertical direction in the masses and coupled openings of the towers. And if the contrast of these several divisions delights us, what is to be said of the balance that correlates these vertical and horizontal features, these various values of form, of plain and ornamental work, of light and shade, into a harmonious unity? It is the product of structural logic and grandeur of feeling; and compared with the reserve of its nobility the west front of Amiens, even the still finer one of Rheims, may seem less impressive. In these, it will be noted, the depth of the door recesses is increased by a pronounced offset in the lower story of the buttress, into which the sculptured jambs of the doorways merge, while the projection thus contrived is crowned with a canopy in the nature of a porch. How does the division at Amiens of the second story into two compare with the simple unity of the one in Notre Dame? Or how does the latter’s arcade compare with the corresponding band at Rheims of figures in arcaded niches, surmounted by ornate canopies? The answer will depend on one’s individual temperament; perhaps also on one’s mood. It may seem to some that in Notre Dame the variety in unity is worked out with more consciousness of the principles to be applied, whereas in the other two façades there is a suggestion of freer and more individual treatment.