Architecture And Archæology.

though a few examples of this description may be imagined , Eand some , perhaps , are actually to be found , ifc is not likely that the tasto of architects , unguided by rules , should concur in the production of such buildings throughout the land . We must have cheap buildings . Of churches I shall presently speak more at large ; but we must have public

buildings of various kinds , as well as private , the erection of which shall involve little or no unnecessary outlay ; whose adornment or adaptation to style shall form a very insignificent item in the cost , compared with what is absolutely . necessary to ensure good work , convenient arrangement , and sound and durable construction .

Now , if there be any style or manner in which these buildings are generally designed , or have been , so long as anything like unity of purpose prevailed ; are we to consider it , so far as it goes , to be the national style , with the power of adding such a system of ornament , whether invented or borrowed from foreign or bygone styles , as shall best harmonize wifch ifcs own princiles of construction and

composip tion ; so that between buildings of the highest and humblest olass there shall be a relationship and unity ? or ought we to have one style for our ordinary buildings , and another for works ( to use tho expression of our neighbours ) of a monumental character ?

And , again , does our ordinary or vernacular architecture belong to , or readily assimilate wifch , any recognised style , so thafc fche ornaments , general forms , rules , and principles of . fchafc style may be adopted and engrafted upon , without changing its character , or rendering ifc less fit for ifcs purposes ? Wifch regard to the first of these questions , —ifc strikes me , that any essential incongruity between our

vernacular and monumental styles would bo productive of great inconvenience , and probably offer a serious obstacle to the advancement of either . Por a large class of buildings , public and private , will necessarily occupy a place between the two , being neither merely ! vernacular nor yet altogether monumental . And ifc is on these thafc fche character and aspect of our great towns will depend . In such buildings

something more may be allowed to ornament than in thoso of the simplest and cheapest class ; and yet considerations of economy must not bo altogether thrown aside . If there ¦ bo that congruity betiveen tho highest and lowest class which makes their difference to consist in degree rather than in principle , then the architect of the middle class has merely to apportion to circumstances his amount of

expenditure in ornament . There is no actual line or barrier by which he must be decidedly controlled , or ivhich he must decidedly overleap , so as to attach his work to one [ or other of two distinct classes , the vernacular and the monumental . But if there be a manifest break between the two , a clear line of demarcation , on one side or other of which the architect must take his standis ifc not likely that the result

, will often bo , on the one hand , pretension , extravagance , and the sacrifice of convenience to show ? or , on the other hand , if the lower side of the barrier be taken , neglect and indifference ou the part of the architect , as if his empioyment were bencp . fch his care and consideration ?

Wc must inquire , then , if there be any style which wo may call our OAVU , perfectly suited to the wants of tho present day ; expressive or capable of being made expressive of the spirit of the age ; and sufficiently comprehensive to embrace both vernacular and monumental worksand that

large class which partakes of both characters . If we ivould vieiv the matter in its proper light we must go back somewhat more than a century . So many of our cheaper structures are of an ephemeral character , and as many of our more expensive ones are built according to tho fancy ofthe architect or his employer , that thoy cannot be said to represent any national or permanent stylo whatever . Bufc if ive look

at several domestic structures , whether insulated mansions or forming parts of streets , of about the date of Queen Anuo ' s reign , we may find something not at all unworthy to bo taken as a national style ; combining many artistic qualities of no mean order wifch dignity , durability , and convenience . There is a house of about the period of which I speak , at the entrance of Camberwell , which I never pass without being struck with the beauty of its composition . It OAVOS little or none of this beauty to ornament , for nothing can be plainer or more simple in this respect . Owing ,

hoivever , to ifcs detached position , ifc admits of a ground plan more favourable to variety of outline and a play of light and shade than can usually be obtained in houses forming part of a street . But , both in the metropolis and in country towns , wo see houses which may be referred to the same type or style of architecture , more or less enriched , which give no small degree of grandeurand some iefcuresqueness to

, p many of our street views . The style , it is true , became unpopular when a more formal imitation of the Greek models was affected ; and still more so , when as a natural consequence of this depressing formality , classic architecture became less in fashion , and the fancy for Mediaaval architecture began to prevail . Many fine specimens were consequentlpulled doivn to make

y way for structures of more pretension , but less real merit ; as , for instance , the school at Birmingham ; bufc this is no proof that the style is unsuited to the spirit of the age , or of the English nation , and that it might not with advantage again occupy the position of a national style . To go no further , ifc harmonizes wifch the character of the houses we build

when we work without reference to style , and are guided solely by the consideration of our own requirements , the state of society , climate , and material . If there be any fitting system of ornament by which such houses may be enriched , without sacrifice of convenience and adaptation to purpose , and at the same time sanctioned by antiquity , or some recognised school of art , and therefore

capable of being carried out according to certain rules , such system may be worked into our national style ; and supposing it has already boon applied , ifc has then become a part of our national stylo , no matter from what quarter it may have been derived ; provided that the buildings on which we have engrafted it bo what we should naturally desiwith a view to our convenienceand that the style

gn , itself ) or system of ornament , be comformable with the spirit of the age , and with its advancement in art , science , and general characteristics of civilization . I believe this is the only legitimate souse of the term " revival , " as applied to an ancient style . Por revival does not consist iu the more reproduction of forms or decoi-ations , which may at any time bo obtained by a clover copyist , nor even in the

occasional appearance of a work conceived in the true spirit of the period which ifcs architect intended to represent , such as the kitchen at Alnwick Castle , designed by Mr . Salvin , a truly original composition , and one that will bear comparison with any corresponding work of the best Mediceval period ; but in tho establishment of the style in such a manner that it shall not only adinifc of , but actually suggest , such modifications as circumstances may demand ; that ifc

shall never appear fco be forced upon the ordinary or vernacular architecture , but rather to flow from ifc naturally and readily ; that , so far from exhibiting any tendency to unfit a building for its jiroper purposes , ifc shall even seem to render its adajitation to them more complete ; that instead of constantly reminding us of its foreign or remote origin , it shall impress us ivith the feeling that ifc might be tho

growth of our own age and country ( and this cannot bo the case , if ifc bears the stamp of a totally different era in the progress of refinement ); and above all , it ought to convey the impression that it has been based on practical grounds , and is not tho offspring of mere fancy or sentiment . Wc know thafc two styles are assorting rival claims to the architecture of the future . At present they seem to assume

a hostile attitude toivards each other , and show but lifcfclo tendency to coalesce , though it is certain thafc any stylo likely to grow and flourish , and mark the character of the ago , must combine elements possessed by each . At the same time ifc is equally certain that , to secure that unity which is essential to tho very life and existence of a national style , ono of them must occupy a superior position , and the

other take a subordinate one . These two styles arc fche Classic and the Gothic , or Mediaeval . We ivill give each tho broadest definition ; considering the Classic to comprehend the Grecian , which ifcs scanty remains present to us under rather a severe , if nofc monotonous aspect , though a careful study of them shows its artists to have been gifted with powers of imagination as vivid and fertile as those which havo been developed iu any era of human history ; the Roman , ivhich combined the Greek wifch other