THE history of Architecture still to be considered, extends through
fifteen centuries to the present time. This interval may be divided
into three eras. I. Period of the circular arch. II. Period of the
pointed arch. III. Revival and practice of classic art. The theories so
abounding in this particular portion of the subject, must be reviewed
as in themselves forming part of the information which the reader has
a right to expect; but the notice will be brief, the narrative, it is
hoped, enabling the judgment to deduce its own conclusions from facts,
independently of all opinion. For this reason, the preceding division
is adopted, characterised only by the style of architecture, without
reference to those minute distinctions and disputes about names, the
great sources of obscurity and unsettled hypothesis in treating of the
building of the middle ages. It may be remarked, _in limine_, that the
term, 'Gothic Architecture,' is of late invention, and appears to be
used in two distinct, or indeed opposite meanings. First, to denote the
whole system of architectural erection intervening between the decline
of the ancient classic modes, and their reappearance soon after the
revival of letters. In this sense, it is usually employed as expressive
of something barbarous and unscientific. In the second place, the
phrase is employed by a large school of writers and artists, to denote
a system or systems of art, arising, it is acknowledged, among men of
rude cultivation in other respects, yet claiming original principles
of invention, and very refined rules of practice--so far even as to
be an imitation of natural prototypes of very distant, yet tasteful
associations. Each of these theories exclusively taken, seems to be
disproved by the course of history, when all preconceived notions are
laid aside, and when art, as ought ever to be the case, is fairly made
its own interpreter.
I. It has been shown that the Romans, in obtaining full mastery of a
powerful engine in building--the arch, were at first bold, subsequently
lavish, and, it will appear, finally barbarous, in its application.
From the reigns even of the early Cæsars, a tendency may be traced in
their architecture to become great in mass, but little in parts--to
lessen, in the first instance, the vertical or supporting members;
and in the second, to load the superstructure, or supported parts.
The progress of corruption might be traced, by regular steps, from
vast arches, with groins planted on a single Corinthian column, to the
arcades of the palace of Dioclesian at Spalatro. These still are left,
exhibiting external and internal ranges of arches, springing directly
from the capitals of the columns, without any intervening entablature.
What more, we ask, is wanting here, to one of the most decided
characteristics of one species, at least, of Gothic architecture,
and an elemental principle in all kinds? nothing, save a little less
elegance of workmanship in the supports, a pier substituted for the
column, and the soffit of the arch bevelled instead of being square;
steps successively apparent in posterior remains. Surely, then, it is
carrying theory beyond all moderate limits, to contend for a separate
origin of the system, when the principles of Gothic building are thus
distinctly recognizable in a corruption of classic modes, at an era
while yet vigorous practice prevailed, with resources undiminished for
its support. This corruption, indeed, evidently proceeded, not so much
from inefficiency, as from too eager pursuit of novelty--this too,
unrestrained by the immediate presence of more simple forms; for, in
the baths of the same emperor, appears a less licentious taste. For the
exterior, indeed, such Gothic arcades do not seem to have been soon
imitated; but for the interior, their adoption was almost immediate.
These intermediate steps it is unnecessary farther to pursue at present.
The era of Constantine, though justly regarded as marking the final
disappearance of the last lingering rays of ancient taste, proves yet
a most important epoch in the history of architecture. The reception
of Christianity as the religion of the empire, not only changed to
a very great extent, the entire frame and aspect of society, but
in a particular manner influenced the practical art of building.
As in the heathen temple was traced the great source of perfection
in ancient art, so in the Christian church then established, is to
be found the origin of those modes and forms, which, for so many
centuries, guided modern practice. But the former structure was one
of external magnificence only; internally, it was neither intended,
nor, unaltered, adapted, to accommodate large assemblies. In the new
religion, this became the primary object in its places of worship:
while the early Christians refused to make use of the 'houses of
idols.' In this emergency, there remained only one course--to convert
the most capacious of unobjectionable buildings into churches. Of all
these, the Basilicon presented, not only no difficulties as having
been desecrated, but also was directly accommodated to the necessities
of the case. The ancient Basilicon was a building of great extent,
adjoining the forum or great square, in every city, serving at once the
purposes of an exchange for the transaction of business, of a court
for the administration of justice, and of a place for general resort.
The exterior was adorned with porticoes more or less magnificent,
while internally it was separated lengthwise by two or four ranges
of columns, into three or five longitudinal divisions, according to
its width. Of these, the middle one was the largest, open to the top,
and uncovered; the side ones were smaller, roofed in, with galleries
opening into the centre compartment, and to which access was had by
stairs at the two extremities. Under an arched niche, usually at the
extremity of the central division, was a tribunal for the judge,
exactly in the situation where the Christian altar was afterwards
placed. From the whole description, it is evident, that the only
alteration necessary to convert this edifice into a complete church,
with its nave and lateral aisles, was to place a roof over the middle
portion. Thus the first Christian churches were formed; and hence many
of those in Rome still retain the name of Basilicon. Subsequently, the
transepts were added, to imitate the cross, though this form seems to
have been very early known in the East.
The general form of the church being thus determined, more through
chance than design, yet with great convenience and propriety, this
accidental form was adhered to in the subsequent erections for
sacred purposes; but with certain internal arrangements, modified
by the lessened resources of the art, the prevailing taste, and the
novel exigencies of the case. Instead of the horizontal entablature
resting upon the internal ranges of pillars, as in the more classical
Basilicon, churches were constructed internally of arcades, the arches
resting upon the capitals of the columns. These latter were torn from
more ancient edifices, but combined, and often with considerable
effect, by the ruder efforts of existing art. Thus, with columns for
supports, united with ranges of semicircular arches abutting against
the walls, we soon find the perfect Gothic church established.
This style of building, recommended at once by convenience and
necessity, rapidly spread over the whole of Italy and the Empire, for
Constantinople was erected from pilfered monuments, which, when taken
to pieces and transported thither, were subsequently set up in a most
confused and imperfect manner. When the supporting columns could no
longer be obtained from ancient structures, or where this resource had
never existed, the whole was to be reared from the foundation. Here it
would soon be discovered that a cylindrical, square, or bevelled pier,
without diminution, would be a fitter and more easily erected support
for the arch. From the desire of stability, or the imperfection of
skill, this pier, of whatever form, begins gradually to decrease in
altitude, while it becomes more massive, still with a base and capital
palpable though rude imitations of the same, members of the classic
column.
In this state was the art, when Italy fell under the power of barbarian
conquerors. This style they adopted in their own buildings; for, after
conquest was secure, they patronised the arts of their subjects,
introducing a still greater profusion of ornament, rudely executed,
and in worse design. Yet the whole effect of such works is often not
without grandeur. Beginning with Rome, we might instance, from our own
observation, a continuous series of monuments, of a style such as now
described, still remaining in different parts of Italy, especially the
Gothic capitals of Lombardy, as Ravenna, Verona, Pavia, introducing
the early revival in Pisa and the cities of Tuscany. Such a survey
would unite the labours of Metrodorus, the first Christian architect
under Constantine, with those of Buschetto and Diotisalvi, in the
commencement of the eleventh century, leading to the mention of various
architects of the Gothic kingdom, as Ciriades, of Rome; Aloisius,
of Padua, author of the famous tomb of Theodoric, called the Rotunda
of Ravenna; St Germain, of France; St Avitus, of Clermont; Agricola,
of Chalons; Romnaldus, of France; Tietland, of Germany; with others.
Such an inquiry, however, is not here necessary, inasmuch as it must
now appear obvious, that the style just described might be termed
Gothic, as practised by the mixed race of invaders, who, under the
name of Goths, subdued Italy; but that such a style could not have
been introduced by them from the forests of Germany and the wilds of
Pannonia.
From Italy, religion, and consequently ecclesiastical building,
extended over the rest of Europe. In France and Germany, the names
enumerated above, with the works still remaining there, might be
examined in corroboration of the fact, that the circular arch prevailed
at the same time in these countries. But as of most importance,
attention is better limited to British art in the middle age. This
species of building is distinguished, in native antiquities, by the
appellation of Saxon or Norman,--displaying, as characteristics, low,
thick, and rotund pillars, with bases and capitals often fantastically
carved, with heavy semicircular arches, springing directly from the
top, corresponding exactly with the corrupted Roman. Regarding the
propriety of this designation, however, doubts may reasonably be
entertained, since it by no means certainly appears that either the
Saxons or Normans were the introducers.
There is evidence that sacred edifices existed in Britain prior to the
Saxon invasion; and, indeed, when Constantine wrote rescripts to the
various provinces, his own birthplace would not be omitted among those
enjoined to erect and repair churches. It would appear, also, that the
Saxons were attached to wooden erections, as is expressed by the verb
_getymbrian_, to build,--a similar analogy, from the same cause, as in
Greek, where the word _wood_ is used to denote the constituent matter,
or material, of anything--as 'the wood,' meaning the matter, of 'an
argument.' It is probable, then, that the stone buildings of the Saxons
were rather copied from existing edifices among the conquered people,
consequently direct imitations of the parent corruptions of Italy.
This last fact, the only one of real importance in the present case,
is not left to conjecture; for, in the accounts of the earliest stone
structures of the seventh century, it is said they were erected, in the
original phrase, 'more Romanorum,' in the style of the Romans, that is,
the style already described. Between the Saxon, or supposed Saxon, and
Norman, there exists no difference, except in the superior magnificence
of the latter--a circumstance accounted for by the progress of society.
It has thus been established, that the style of building with circular
arches is clearly a corruption from the ancient classic forms. With
little distinctive change, or characteristic difference, this mode was
practised throughout Europe during nine centuries.
II. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, an innovation upon
the long monotony of the circular arch begins to appear and to be
perfected. This was the introduction of the pointed, or lancet Gothic,
to which species the term is more strictly limited. The origin and
progress of the pointed arch, has been rendered one of the most
complicated problems in the history of architecture. The subjects
of discussion here involve two questions--first, Whence and by whom
this style was introduced? secondly, From what prototype the idea was
originally derived?
On the former of these subjects, the various conflicting opinions may
be arranged under two general heads: that the proper Gothic, or pointed
arch, had its origin in the cathedral buildings of England, whence the
knowledge and practice of this style was diffused throughout Europe
during the thirteenth century; or that this architecture is of Oriental
growth, and was brought into Europe by the Crusaders. The author of
the first system we believe was Walpole; but it has since been adopted
by Britton, and a large proportion of the English antiquaries. The
second opinion has been ably maintained by Lord Aberdeen, and is that
more generally adopted in other countries. It is not here possible to
enter into the details of the controversy; the latter view certainly
appears to be supported by the analogy both of history and of the arts.
This, in absence of positive evidence, and with similar buildings
of equal age and character in France, affords far more conclusive
argument than any to be derived from the greater perfection which the
style, comparatively speaking, displays in England, when the extent
of the country and the number of fine buildings are considered. But
individual edifices, especially in Germany, are not only equally
ancient, but more splendid. Our pretensions to exclusive invention,
under circumstances so notorious, that, in Italy, the Gothic is more
frequently styled '_Tedesco_,' or '_German_,' have exposed the national
information in matters of art, to the severe but merited animadversions
of foreign writers. The assumption, however, appears to have little
connexion with national opinion, having arisen among antiquaries whose
almost sole study had been English building, or, at least, who had
viewed the history of Architecture under this peculiar mode alone. In
this respect, extensive research and elegant erudition enabled Lord
Aberdeen to bring to the subject every requisite of decision; and were
we inclined to place faith in any exclusive theory of introduction, it
would be that which his Lordship has so ably advocated, in maintaining
the Eastern origin of the Gothic or pointed arch.
From what exemplar this form was conceived, or by what prototype
suggested, has, in the second place, exercised speculation to a
wide extent. The following are the principal opinions: 1. Theory of
Warburton,--that natural groves supplied the primitive idea, the
trunks, branches, and foliage of the trees being represented in the
pillars, arches, and tracery of the Gothic. 2. The system of Sir James
Hall,--that the whole style, in all its varieties, is but an imitation
of wickerwork,--an opinion frequently, though very improperly,
considered as a modification of the former: it is independent, and
has been very ingeniously followed out in detail. 3. Theory of Sir
Christopher Wren, remarkable at least in its propounder,--that the Free
Masons were the inventors of the pointed arch. 4. Opinions of many
German and Continental writers,--that this arch is but an imitation
of the Egyptian and Indian pyramid. 5. Hypothesis, first incidentally
proposed by Bentham, subsequently methodized and illustrated by Dr
Milner, and pretty generally received,--that the intersection of
semicircular arches forming intermediate pointed ones, gave the
primitive model. This interlacing of arches is a common ornament in
buildings of the old Gothic, already explained; it occurs frequently
in relievo, and, if we recollect rightly, also with disengaged columns
in several of the façades of old churches in Italy. Durham and Lincoln
cathedrals, likewise ecclesiastical remains in Scotland, as Kelso
Abbey, furnish examples. 6. Opinion of Mr Whittaker and others,--that
pointed Architecture was known to, and practised by, the Romans, early
under the imperial government.
Such are the leading theories on this interesting subject; an
examination of the facts would lead to a history of the ecclesiastical
architecture of a great portion of Europe for upwards of three
centuries. In France, the pointed arch was early introduced; but the
light style of Gothic architecture was not generally carried to such
perfection as in Germany and Flanders, having been sooner affected by
the introduction of the Italian taste. The German style was perfected
about the close of the fourteenth century, and subsequently appears to
have undergone little variation, even to the middle of the sixteenth,
thus retaining the elegance of the best age in the art much longer.
Compared with our own, the best examples have much the same character,
with lighter forms and richer tracery,--but of such examples there are
fewer in proportion than with us. In Italy, the pointed arch never
obtained. It is found, indeed, in Venice and Milan, and occasionally
elsewhere; but the style to which it gave birth is not characteristic
of Italy, where the early churches are of the old or circular, and the
more modern of the mixed or Lombard style. In England, four general
periods mark so many changes of Gothic.
1. From 1235 to 1272, including the reigns from the accession of
Stephen to that of Edward I., termed _Early_, _English_, _Simple_,
and _Lancet Gothic_, characterised by long narrow openings, with a
very sharp high arch. Early part of the period shows the gradual
introduction of the pointed style.
2. From 1272 to 1377, to the accession of Richard II. This has been
designated the age of the _Pure Gothic_, or _Decorated English_, being
more highly ornamented than the former, but without exuberance;
especially characterised by an arch which circumscribes an equilateral
triangle, hence proposed to be named, _Triangular Gothic_.
3. From 1377 to 1509, terminating with the accession of Henry VIII.
This constitutes the age of the _Florid Gothic_, which, between these
dates, underwent a succession of changes; first, from aspiring, to
flatly-pointed and obtuse arches, with large daylights, in panels and
straight mullions, instead of tracery; hence the names _Obtuse_ and
_Perpendicular English_; becomes more and more ornamented; ceilings of
the richest and most complicated tracery, with pendents; Henry VII.'s
chapel fine specimen.
4. From 1509 to 1625; when the reign of Charles I. introduces Inigo
Jones, and the revival of ancient architecture. First part of the reign
of Henry the Eighth a continuation of the Florid Gothic; subsequently
the designs of Holbein, and of the Italian artist employed by that
monarch, entirely ruined the Gothic, introducing a most barbarous
mixture of Roman, Italian, and Gothic. In the succeeding reigns, a
stiff and most unmeaning style arose; and, in Scotland, we trace a
near approach, if not in magnitude, at least in excellence, to the
English examples of Gothic; while the fortunes of the art are found
to assimilate to its history in Germany, in as far as a character
of great perfection was early formed, and longer preserved, than in
the south. It must appear a singular proof of hasty and inconclusive
inquiry, that, while an English origin has been claimed for the pointed
arch, its elements are found of a date more ancient in Scottish
ecclesiastical buildings, not to mention those on the Continent.
In opposition to all the preceding theories, we consider the system
of pointed architecture, or that properly denominated Gothic, to
have arisen independently, though almost contemporaneously, among
the nations of Europe most conspicuous for the cultivation of this
peculiar style. In this we are borne out by a series of monuments in
each country, showing the progressive rise and introduction of the
pointed arch, from the form of two long stones, placed on supports,
and meeting at top--a contrivance as still visible in the walls of
Mycenæ, of three thousand years' standing, up to the finished lancet
arch, as in Salisbury cathedral. Or, granting even the Eastern
introduction of the arch--and here the monuments are of very doubtful
antiquity,[F]--what does this prove with regard to the origin of the
system?--Absolutely nothing. This knowledge alone would not go further
to enable the architect to construct a Gothic cathedral, than would one
of the voussoirs in teaching him the properties of the arch itself.
The system is one entire and independent whole, in which the pointed
arch is merely an instrument subservient to principles, in consequence
of which, if not invented, it was at least improved and rendered
perfect. In this light the subject has too seldom been viewed: a light
which places Gothic architecture in true and dignified position of an
independent branch of art, governed by its own precepts of convenience,
stability, and ornament.
When, in consequence of an extraordinary out-breaking of religious
zeal and enthusiasm, an astonishing change was wrought in the frame of
European society, one of the first impulses was to provide, in those
countries hitherto comparatively ignorant of the arts, more suitable
edifices for the services of that religion, in whose cause multitudes
were shedding, or ready to shed, their blood in distant and unknown
regions. Thus the Crusades were, but not as usually supposed, the cause
of the introduction of art. They operated as one of those moral springs
of action by which the arts, as the course of human life, are found to
be directed.
Under such impressions, when the architect contemplated the ancient
structures, the principle of convenience would at once suggest the
necessity of heightening their low arches, and decreasing their
enormous supports, by which light was obstructed, and space filled up.
He saw, however, these efforts could not be accomplished on the old
methods:--here the principle of stability--no abstract theory, but the
knowledge of the practical builder--taught him, that by elevating the
crown of the arch, and thus removing in part the lateral pressure,
both objects would be accomplished; for while height was gained, the
weight would be thrown more into the perpendicular, and consequently
would remain firm with diminished support. The principle once
introduced, was carried even to frightful boldness. But again, though
the lateral pressure was removed from the arcade itself, abutment
was still to be provided at the extremities and side-walls. Hence
the peculiar characteristic of the buttress. This indeed existed in
the old Gothic; but here the feature assumed a novel appearance. The
arches being placed high, required additional altitude to be added,
as a counterbalance, at the opposing point; thus the buttress was
converted into a turret or pinnacle, susceptible of every varied form
which it afterwards received, when the desire of ornament, without the
guidance of taste, wandered into every maze of fantasy. Thus the whole
system depended upon principle--neither rising, like an exhalation,
in consequence of imported knowledge, nor emulating some remote
association or model, but by the slow and gradual process of experience.
The Gothic cathedral, thus contemplated in its native character and
principles--established in unmoved security by the very agency of those
forces which tend most directly to destruction, displays an evidence
of science, perhaps, when the times are considered, the most wonderful
in the whole history of intelligence. Never have the stereometric
precepts of building--one of the most difficult branches of the art,
been better exhibited than in these piles. Mass counteracts mass,--the
very confliction of downward efforts upholds the reed-like column, and
hangs on high the ponderous vault. Self-balanced, the entire system
contains within itself the essence of its own existence in the chain
of means and end, of minute contrivance, and of one purpose. Yet amid
all this no effort is apparent, even while the mind starts at the
power of its own ingenuity over the properties of matter, and the laws
of nature--the artist seems to sport with his subject, to tempt the
prostration of his airy fabrics. Here come into aid the principles of
Gothic ornament, than which nothing pertaining to the style more merits
admiration, whether as enabling the architect to extend the fantasy of
his plans, or still more as essentially producing those effects which
these plans contemplate. In no system of architecture, the Grecian
not even excepted, do the ornamental, so completely integrate and
harmonize with the necessary modes. Ornament could not here be removed
without destruction both of beauty and stability; it strengthens, yet
conceals the necessity of support; and, like the garniture of herbage,
and flower, and twining plant, upon the rugged face of earth, it
spreads to the delighted eye its mazy error, where would else be only a
frightful and unformed mass of nodding masonry.
Such are the merits of Gothic architecture, examined in itself, and
in reference to the times which gave it birth. Apart from these
considerations, viewed as the object of refined perception or
cultivated taste, the entire system is defective. In architecture,
pleasurable emotion arises from a two-fold cause--the modes, and the
associations of the art. In regard to the former, it may be laid down
as an universal precept of taste, that in architecture, of all the
arts, according to the exhibition of principle, and to the facility
with which the mind conceives design, and traces intention, will be
the mental pleasure produced by the work. This constitutes the very
essence of exalted feeling in Greek art, which, grounded upon obvious
principle, consonant with natural appearances, and pursuing beauty as
a final aim, fills the mind with delight and admiration. In Gothic
architecture, all this is reversed: its first principle is, to conceal
all principle; to dazzle and to surprise by effects seemingly at
variance with all the usual harmonies of things. Hence, on entering a
Gothic edifice, though the mind, at first, be strongly affected by the
magnitude and daring arrangement of the forms, where
----the tall pile,
Whose ancient pillars rear their marble heads,
Bearing aloft the arch'd and pond'rous roof,
By its own weight stands steadfast and immoveable;
yet neither the judgment nor the fancy experiences those continually
increasing emotions of delight which a Grecian building inspires.
Again, the associations connected with Gothic structures are temporary,
and, in great measure, local. They are dependent on our assurance of
antiquity. Remove from such their antique reminiscences, and venerable
traditions, and they are despoiled of all, or good part, of their power
over the imagination. With religious Gothic, our associations are more
congenial; the holiness of the sentiment mingles its permanency even
with the abstract forms; we love the very semblance of the place,
Where, through the long-drawn aisle and fretted vault,
The pealing anthem swells the note of praise!
But there can be no doubt that this effect is accidental, not
intrinsic; for decidedly the most impressive interiors in Europe are
those in churches on classic models. To such style we are, indeed,
not accustomed; yet certain it is, the first Christian hymn, when
Christianity had now obtained a temple, rose to heaven from amid the
beauteous majesty of the Grecian orders. Sublime associations, how much
more in unison with the simple grandeur of the reformed service, than
the austerity and superstitious gloom of Gothic erection!
As a system, then, adapted to its own age--as possessing independent,
if not dignified, principles, we consider the pure Gothic, as now
described, as one of the most singular and ingenious modes of
architectonic science. But in its revived and modern application no
useful purpose can be served, whether of good taste or legitimate
effect.
III. Having thus considered, at some length, the only original and
distinguishing characteristics of the architecture of the middle age;
the revival of classic forms, as already described, and therefore
offering little of novelty, seems to require here only brief notice.
Indeed, to render a detailed account interesting, would introduce
discussions too lengthened for our limits, on the present state of the
art in the different countries of Europe.
So early as the commencement of the eleventh century, the Italians
began to depart from the ungraceful style of the first period; a
departure which, if not a renovation, was at least an improvement,
in some measure founded upon closer conceptions of ancient art, and
with the Roman orders, though improperly applied. This style, heavy,
highly decorated, but not unimpressive, continued to the close of the
fourteenth century, and has been named the Italian. Its principal
masters were the sculptors already mentioned as belonging to the
period. With the commencement of the fifteenth century, a new and
far higher school arose, which, though far from pure, was yet much
improved; and would have been still more so, had not its patrons been
chiefly painters, too ready to aspire to the bold and peculiar effects
of their own art. Bramante, the first architect of St Peter's, Da
Vinci, Raphael, Julio Romano, and, above all, Michael Angelo, were the
masters of this era. The last mentioned mighty name, here, as in all
the arts, created his own style: robust, even to the abuse of strength;
incorrect, and sometimes barbarous, in detail; in general effect,
always grand and original. In St Peter's, with many defects, and still
greater beauties, he has left a monument of his genius, the most
glorious structure that now adorns the face of the earth, unequalled in
extent as in science.
Yes, thou, of temples old or altars new,
Standest alone, with nothing like to thee--
Worthiest of God, the holy and the true.
Since Zion's desolation, when that He
Forsook his former city, what could be
Of earthly structures, in his honor piled,
Of a sublimer aspect? Majesty,
Power, glory, strength, and beauty, there are aisled.
Great as was this school, much was yet wanting to retrieve the golden
purity of ancient art; and this, in the succeeding century, was added
by Palladio, so far at least, as the severe majesty of the primitive
modes could be recovered from a Roman writer, and by the study of Roman
exemplars. Palladio is refined, rather than nervous,--elegant, rather
than grand; but of all the modern masters, he is the most chaste in
design and ornament, prior to more recent knowledge of the fountain
of all excellence--the remains of Greece. His school was numerous, at
least the masters who followed out his principles; which, spreading
over Europe, firmly established the Roman style, banishing a bastard
species of Roman Gothic, by which both systems had been disgraced, and
their characteristic distinctions confounded. Of the Palladian, or
reformed school, Bernini was the last disciple of genius; his circular
colonnade, in front of St Peter's, is worthy of its site. With him, and
the conceits of Borromini, Italian architecture may almost be said to
have ceased. In France, the two Mansards, during the building reign of
Louis XIV., have left heavy imitations of the Michael-Angelesque style;
still, to the artist writers of that country, the art owes much. It
is there more regularly studied than in any other country in Europe;
and in one specimen, the façade of the Louvre, the grandest excellence
has been attained; but the general character of national building is
too fluttering, wanting repose and majesty. From the two schools,
the following ten have been selected, under the name of the modern
masters, because, in their writings or buildings, the best precepts
are obtained. Ranging the names in order of merit, we have Palladio,
Scamozzi, Vignola, Alberti, De Lorme, Serlio, Viola, Cataneo, Boullant,
Barbaro.
The graces of the Palladian school were caught by the congenial spirit
of Inigo Jones, in whose labours the English school of classical
architecture took its rise, and, we might almost say, received
its completion. Whitehall and Greenwich will rank among the finest
architecture of Europe--evidences at once of the skill of the artist,
and the taste of Charles I. Sir Christopher Wren, in the succeeding
reign, with the same chaste design, brought to the profession more
general science than his predecessor. His opportunities, from the
consequences of the great fire, were greater than perhaps have
fallen to the lot of any other modern; and, in the erection of the
Metropolitan Cathedral, he proved the capabilities of his genius to be
equal to his good fortune. He has reared the second, and barely second,
edifice in the world. The art has nothing finer than the western
front--so rich, so noble, and, notwithstanding the double arcade, so
pure. On the whole, the exterior of St Paul's is to be preferred,
both for effect and design, to St Peter's. Not so the interior. The
Roman Basilicon opens upon the view with a calm, majestic, expansive
capaciousness; the English cathedral is broken into parts, and
scattered in its entireness.
Jones and Wren have remained the great masters of the English school:
though Vanbrugh hardly deserved Swift's satire--
Lie heavy on him, earth, for he
Laid many a heavy load on thee;
while the Earl of Burlington, in spite of Pope, did understand
building. Gibbs, Kent, Hawksmore, left no successors; and during the
reign of George II., English architecture was at its lowest. His late
majesty is reported to have understood, and certainly had a taste for,
the science; but his majesty was scarcely happy in the artist whom
he patronized, Chambers, the architect of Somerset-house, and whose
character may be thus summed up:--he introduced the Chinese style, and
denied that the Parthenon ever existed, or that, if it did, it must
have been a clumsy piece of business. It is unnecessary to pursue the
subject. For the mixed Roman--the modern Gothic--and Oriental styles,
which have since prevailed, we can find no place among the modes of art.
The most recent improvements in the British metropolis are in better
taste than those immediately preceding; but in following the varied
forms of buildings among the Romans, rather than the simpler outline
of the Greeks, though no error has been committed, but perhaps the
contrary, sufficient care has not been employed to place these varied
masses advantageously, both as respects their own grandeur, and their
decorative effect in street architecture.
A more promising aspect, also, of things, invites attention to the
Northern capital. This singularly romantic and beautiful city,
combining the associations of centuries with our admiration of the
living age, and exhibiting in its buildings the rudest and the most
refined exemplars, constitutes a feature in the history of our national
architecture, and, among the cities of Europe, an isolated instance
of undecided mastery between art and nature. The earlier of the new
buildings of the Scottish metropolis, are, generally speaking, in the
Palladian, or Roman style, with the exception of the college. Adams, in
the last, has left a most splendid proof of genius. Viewed, as it ought
to be, in itself, within the quadrangle, it fills the eye with a burst
of splendid magnificence, equal to any effect we have ever experienced
in modern building. Recent structures are in the true Grecian modes,
transcripts from the Theseum and the Parthenon. We rejoice in this; it
is the only source whence renewed vigor can be derived to our fallen
art--for fallen it is at present among us; nor do we perceive, in the
British empire, such decided marks, not of reviving, but of vigorous
taste, as in the Scottish school of architecture. The National Monument
on the Calton, emulates, in gigantic mass, the Athenian structures
themselves; while in the new High School is presented a perfect gem of
art--where the purest Greek modes are combined and adapted with the
happiest originality. The laborious and useful investigations which
have rendered our artists so well acquainted with even the minutest
details of the Greek forms, cannot remain without fruit--provided
architects will be true to the best interests of their profession. Let
it ever be borne in mind, that, magnificent as are the specimens of
Roman skill, we desert the parent source when for these we forsake the
remains of Grecian genius and art.
On reviewing these pages, it scarcely appears, that incidents or
principles of importance have been overlooked, without such notice as
limits permitted. In treating of the Fine Arts, indeed, the subject
of patronage may seem to demand more separate consideration than is
bestowed in occasional remarks. Brief, however, as these are, they
will be found to contain, on this question, the impartial decisions
of history, which uniformly declares the only wise, wholesome, and
inspiring patronage to consist in national sympathy and national regard
for the objects, purposes, and professors of Art. Here the countenance
and protection of government are necessarily included, as affording
the most distinguished assurance of the existence of this feeling, and
as giving direction to the national efforts. In Britain, the genius of
our institutions, and the character of the people require, while they
will add power to, the effects of this union. These institutions are
more national--the opulence and intelligence of the subject, abler to
strengthen the hands and to aid the designs of government, than in any
other empire that ever existed. Our Fine Arts have hitherto been the
only constituent of our national glory to which the cheering influence
of this united sympathy has been denied.
THE END.
FOOTNOTES:
[A] Constable's Miscellany.
[B] The best of these confirm the former remarks on this accomplished
artist.
[C] 'I desire, Mr Lely,' said Cromwell, when sitting to the artist,
'that you will paint my picture truly like me, and not flatter me at
all; but remark all these roughnesses, pimples, warts, and everything
as you see me; otherwise I will never pay you a farthing.'
[D] In these ruins are two lions sculptured in relievo described by
Pausanius, and remaining the most ancient accredited monument of the
art in Greece.
[E] See Edinburgh Encyclopædia, vol. xviii. part i. p. 21.
[F] Since expressing our opinion, in an early part of the volume, on
the doubtful antiquity of Indian architecture, we have perceived, with
pleasure, that Bishop Heber's observations confirm the inference we had
ventured to draw from the analogies of art.
Transcribers Notes:
Obvious typos were silently corrected.
Archaic and variable spelling has been preserved.
Expressions such as 'epochas' for 'epochs' on P23, have not
been altered.
Numbers such as 'twentyninth', have been retained throughout.
Inconsistant spelling such as - 'developement' and 'development', has
been retained.
Gnidian and Gnidos have been replaced with Cnidian and Cnidos,
P63 and 64.
In the table of contents chapter XII has been corrected from
p153 to p154.
Variations in hyphenation and compound words have been preserved.
Italics are shown thus: _sloping_.
Small capitals have been capitalised.
[OE] and [oe] have been used as ligatures.