country where it appears, we shall inevitably trace it in transition; wherever it is brought in complete, and adopted in works of considerable magnitude, it becomes as it were a rival, and is likely to be more or less closely followed by the native architects; though many of these, through preference of their old fashion or ignorance of the new, may go on building in a style half a century behind others. Thus it must be expected that many perplexing anomalies will occur to us in attempting to assign dates, which in fact would be inexplicable on any other theory. Still on the whole each country had its characteristic development[1]."
All this is very true and very important within due limitations, but is it not a fatal objection to such minute subdivision of styles?—If we are to make three separate styles in each century, and also to acknowledge that one builder may be half a century behind others at the same time, how are we ever to remember the succession of styles, or judge of the age of a building which may have been built in the "style before the last." The simple old-fashioned plan of describing buildings by the reigns of the different Kings, is far less objectionable than all these new styles. The style of Henry the Third or of Edward the Third is more easy to remember and as well defined as these new distinctions, Mr. Rickman's broad divisions are natural, easy, and obvious, and those who wish for more minute divisions may readily make them by adding early or late in the style, or the name of the king in whose reign that division was most in use.
With regard to foreign countries, it must be borne in mind that Normandy and a considerable part of France formed part of the English dominions at the time the change of style took place, and many of the finest French cathedrals are acknowledged by the French themselves to have been "built by the English," that is by the Anglo-Normans. In other foreign countries the distinction is far greater, and sufficiently great to make it desirable to distinguish them by the names of their respective countries. Mr. Paley observes that "both the Early English and the Third Pointed, or Perpendicular, are peculiar to our country. The corresponding or synchronous continental styles are the geometrical Decorated, and the Flamboyant. But at Norrez and Ardenne, near Caen, Professor Whewell found as perfect and genuine 'Early English' churches as our country can supply." The chapel of the seminary at Bayeux is another example of pure and good Early English work; though even in these buildings the mouldings partake of a French character.
The following remarks on symbolism are proofs of Mr. Paley's good sense, when he has firmness enough to use it, and free himself from the
- ↑ This is not sufficiently attended to by modern architects; even Mr. Pugin has set the dangerous example of foreignising in his churches and their decorations. True it is that in the middle ages improvements were frequently borrowed from the continent. But this is worse than needless now, for we have better ancient models of our own to follow than can be procured from abroad. This is admitted by Mr. Petit, "Remarks," &c. vol. i. p. 13.—See Rickman, p. 37.
