ENGUSB.] AECHITEC T U II E 425 San Miniato at Florence, to the cathedral of Torcello, to San /^enone, Verona, and San Michele, Pavia, and see how gradually but surely the plan and details were being deve loped into what soon became a new style ; and from these examples we may follow the stream of art from the south to the centre of France, and thence to this country and Germany. Or looking at other developments in Italy, we may in the same way trace a succession of circular build ings, in which the connection and sequence is clear, leading us as it does from the Pantheon, and other circular Roman temples, through the old cathedral of Brescia and the grand church of San Vitale, Ravenna, to the cathedral at Aachen, and so to our own circular churches, and to many of those which, like the Marion Kirche, Treves, though not really circular in appearance, are yet so planned as to fall properly within the same class. The course of progress of European art was to a great extent first of all geographical and political. For, in addi tion to the influence exercised by conquest or the political connection of one district with another, it is remarkable how much particular styles are limited by geographical divisions and boundaries, by the courses of rivers, the occurrence of convenient building materials, and other such secondary causes. And with so many causes for variations of style in existence, it will be quite neces sary, in order to give any intelligible account of the whole course of Gothic architecture, even in the shortest compass, to treat separately each of the great national divisions. We will take England first, only premising that, following strict order, we ought to have begun with Italy, were it not that, in spite of the origin of all northern art having to be looked for there, as soon as it came to be a question of development, almost all the life and vigour of architecture in the Middle Ages is to be seen north and not south of the Alps ; and whatever was borrowed, in the first instance, from Italy was paid back again with interest afterwards. And in taking England first, we have the advantage of speaking of a national art, of which every educated Englishman knows some of the examples, so as to be more able to follow the course of our argument than would be the case were all the examples of its application foreign and unknown to him. English Gothic Architecture, The history of the development of Gothic architecture is, perhaps, more easily read on the buildings themselves here than it is in any other part of Europe. The Roman build ings in England were never of very great importance, and were not always standing as evidences of the existence of an older style, which might be looked back and up to with respect and admiration, even where they did not harmonise with popular customs. Such art, nevertheless, as did exist in this country before the llth century, was, no doubt, derived from Roman examples existing in the country, and copied in a rude and unskilful fashion by native workmen. The existing Roman remains show that there was quite enough architectural and decorative art introduced into the country by the Romans to have formed a school of masons, sculptors, and builders, if the civilisation of the people had been sufficient to make them desire it. Such a school can hardly be said to have been formed if we look at the few and comparatively rude remains of buildings certainly erected be fore the Norman Conquest. In such work as the beautiful urchway recently discovered in Britford church, Wilts, where carving of stone-work is joined with brick or tile and stone in a very elegant fashion, we see the immediate effect of cultured Roman influence and example. At a later date, in such fine works as the steeple of Earl s Farton, Nonhants, we see only the rude grandeur of compara tively uncivilised workmen cognizant only at a distance of good Roman work. In upwards of a hundred churche?, dispersed in various parts of England, fragments more or less complete of these early buildings, erected before the Norman Conquest, still remain. They are numerous enough to enable us to classify their features in a general way, and they agree in certain definite points of difference from the architecture which prevailed after the Norman Conquest. It is probable that a considerable proportion of these buildings were erected after the year 1000, when wo recollect the influence which the expected end of the world had in discouraging building shortly before that date, and how enormous the zeal for building was as soon as it was safely passed. The leading features of the buildings erected before the Conquest are as follows : (.) Quoins at angles alternately long and short, the difference being so marked as to be seen on the most casual inspection; (6.) Arrange ment of wall faces into panels by means of vertical strips or pilasters of stone ; (c.) Arches built not only in semi circular form, but frequently (and especially for arcading) with straight sides ; (d.) Rude balusters, generally bulging outwards in the centre, used to divide openings of more than one divison (as, e.g., belfry windows); (e.) Introduc tion of rudely moulded, chamfered, or plain square abaci at the springings of arches ; (/.) Towers, in several cases of some importance, adorned with arcading, formed by pilasters and round or straight sided arches. These features are all represented in illuminated MSS. of the same period, and are not seen in works executed after about the date of the Conquest. It is this fact that makes the year 1066 a convenient year for dealing with as the assumed commence ment of a new epoch. But in fixing this date, we must remember that, though the Conquest of William would ac count satisfactorily for the changed style of building which is universally seen after this time, there can be no doubt that Edward the Confessor s Norman education led naturally to the introduction of many Norman features into English work. The considerable remains of that king s foundation at Westminster Abbey afford good evidence of the fact, that the so-called Saxon style had been abandoned by the workmen employed by- him, and that the way was being prepared for the adoption of all the Norman architectural features even before the imposition of the Norman rule. The succeeding periods of English architecture have been generally divided upon similar systems, the main dispute among antiquaries and architects being as to the nomenclature of the various styles which followed each other in a regular course of development, rather than as to the exact period of change. Between the complete styles there is always a period of transition, during which t ia features of the styles were not so well marked, and during- which the progress of the art was by no means uniformly rapid in all parts of the country. The following chrono logical table gives the main divisions : From tlie reign of William I. to the end of Stephen, ]066 to 1154 Henry II., 1154 to 1189.... Richard I. to Henry III., 1189 -to 1272 Edward I., 1272 to 1307 ... Edward II., ]307 to 1327.. Edward III., 1327 to 1377 Richard II., 1377 to 1399 Henry IV. to Henry VIII., 1399 to 1546 Xonnan Style, or Romanesque. Transitional from Norman to Pointed. Early English ; First Pointed ; or Lancet. Transition from Early Pointed to Complete, or Geometrical Pointe L Geometrical Pointed. Flowing; or Curvilinear Style. These two are generally treated as one style, railed by Rickman Deco rated, by others Middle Pointed. Transition from the flowing lines of Decorated or Middle Pointed to the stiff and hard lines of the suc ceeding style. Third Pointed ; or Rectilinear (Sharpe) ; or Perpendicular (Rick- in an).
II. - 54