Architecture And Archæology.

ARCHITECTURE AND ARCH ? OLOGY .

ON THE REVIVAL OF STYLES . ( continued from page 4 S 9 . ) AYe have now to consider the question , whether we ought to have two distinct and dissimilar styles , — one for secular , the other for ecclesiastical purposes . And here I think

the advocates of the Gothic revival have taken a more advantageous stand than those who oppose its application to secular purposes ; for the latter seem not unwilling to relinquish the Classic style in church , buildings , so long as they retain it for civil uses ; while the former contend that the Gothic is the best , not only for churches , but for all structures whatever . In factthey evidentlfeel how

, y necessary is unison in a national style . I must confess that , if they can establish Gothic as the only legitimate church architecture of the present day , I do nofc see how their opponents can long resist their claim upon secular architecture also . Churches must be classed among what we have referred to as monumental buildings ; aud ifc is clearly adverse to the progress of art thafc the architect should

have to give up his niiad to two sorts of composition , both of them of a high order , grounded on principles that in many respects are antagonistic to each other . The dissonance between buildings of different styles , like the irregularities in the same building that I have just spoken of , if they are clearly the result of accident or necessity , as when they actuallbelong to different periods is valuable both

y as conducive to picfcuresqueness , and as forming a sort of historical record ; bufc when ifc is no other than the result of caprice , waywardness of fancy , or want of unity among artists , it becomes unpleasing to the eye and perplexing to the mind . Nor can it be said that ifc is necessary to have one style for houses or secular buildings and another for churchesin order that we may know a church when we see

, it . Of the thousands of churches thafc have been built at different times , whatever may be their style or date , how few are there that would be confounded with secular buildings , and vice versa . The ecclesiastical character depends very little indeed

upon style ; and it would be possible to build a church perfectly unexceptionable in composition , form , aspect , expression , and general arrangement , without introducing any one characteristic of any recognised style whatever . As an istance I will notice a Protestant church afc Emmerich , near the Dutch frontier on the Ehine . In date it corresponds wifch that period to which I have referred , as

offering something like a national architecture of our own , namely , the reign of Queen Anne . It is of brick , very plain , and devoid of ornament , and worked in rather a meagre manner , the walls being evidently very thin . The plan is a Greek cross , with very short arms , and no arches across the intersection , which might support a central tower or dome ; the whole roofing is consequently of wood . This

is high-pitched and hipped ; only one of the fronts having a low pediment , which had . better have been omitted ; a wooden cupola or lantern , of a very ordinary description , crowns the top . The windows are round arched , and arranged in two tiers , for the sake of galleries . There is but little detail anywhere ; what there is has a classical character . NowI doubt not that an exclusive admirer of

, Gothic would pronounce this an extremely ugly building , and would wonder what- made me stop in the town an hour for the purpose of examining it ; but I confess I was very much struck both with its appearance and capabilities . From a distance I saw nofc only thafc ifc was a church , but a very good church ; nor was I disappointed on a nearer approach , when I could judge better of its proportion . Had

the wall been thicker , so as to give more depth and effect to tbe openings , I should have considered it really a grand building . There is a church of much the same form , and probably date , at Eisenach , in Germany , haviug , however , square instead of round-headed windows , which did not take from its ecclesiastical aspect . Another church thafc I may hero notice is one afc the Hague , which also has high pitched timber roofs , and a central turret of the same material . The plan of this church

comprehends two intersections by transepts , which , as well as fche ends , are apsidal . Externally the style is classical , having large pilasters with regular capitals and entablature ; internally there are no details belonging to any style , though the open timber roof gives an appearance of richness , ' it is decidedly a striking object , and well worthy of study . I should think ifc not impossible to give it a construction

which might admit of a stone central lantern or turret . But even our own Dissenting chapels , of the last century , and the beginning of the present , plain and often tasteless as they are , have a certain character which marks them as set apart for religious purposes ; and without being different in style ( if they can be said to have any ) from the houses on each side of them , are easily distinguishable , and leave no

doubt with the spectator as to the purpose for which they have been erected . I must , however , rescue from the charge _ of tastelessness one at York , built , I suppose , about the middle of last century , and just as devoid of any pretension to style as the plainest of the houses which surround it . It is nearly in the form of a Greek cross , and has a wide and low central tower , giving the building an outline not inferior in diginity to many good Mecliaval churches .

If it were not for the existence of structure which we are not likely again to require or reproduce—I mean cathedrals of the largest class—I doubt whether the Gothic movement would have proceeded with much spirit , even if it had been commenced at all . It is only by such structures that we can be impressed with a full admiration of the style ; and any argument in favour of its revival which rests on the

impressiveness of such buildings falls to the ground , if it can be shown that such impressiveness is what ; we shall probably never again obtain , at least by similar means . If this were a cathedral building age , it might be an age in which Gothic architecture could be revived . Bufc it is nofc a

cathedral building age . AYe may require and build large churches ; we niay not grudge handsome and expensive ones ; we may increase the number and force of choral establishments ; but that pile of building which constituted the great cathedral of the Middle Ages , whose exterior expressed dominion over the adjacent district , whose interior suggested the idea of infinity , —this we are not likely again

to call into existence;—nofc because we are as a nation wanfcing in the spirit of liberality ; for large sums are continually expended in . the restoration of our old cathedrals ; and , if any one were to be utterly destroyed , I believe it would be rebuilt upon the same scale of magnificence;—but because we are a practical nation , and feel that cathedral building in these days is not the only way , nor the most

effective way , of securing and spreading abroad the blessings of our religion ,- —that an almost unlimited expenditure in mere externals ( for cathedral building amounts to this ) , however it might have been justified in some epochs of the church , is not so in the present , when other necessities and exigencies call for a different application of our means . It isI suspectbecause this is not a cathedral-building

, , age ( for this practical spirit is not confined to our own country and our own persuasion ) , that our genius seems to flag and languish when we attempt what is especially the architecture of cathedrals ; while in our engineering works , we display a power , and , I will add , a perception of architectural propriety , not surpassed in the greatest works of the Romans .

If we are to consider the question between Gothic and Classic as a mere matter of taste ( I mean arbitrary taste or fashion ) , we must bear in mind that this is notoriously liable to fluctuation . In the last century , Addison spoke of the greatness ( as regards effect ) of the Pantheon , hi contrast with the meanness of a Gothic cathedral ; and , though it is not probable thafc the Gothic style will again be treated with the same contempt ; yet it is by no means impossible that the relative estimation in which the two styles are now held , will , in the course of time , be reversed .

What appears to me an insuperable obstacle to tne general use of Gothic in the present day is thafc very quality which invests it with the greatest interest : I mean its impression of the tone of the particular period which witnessed its developement , its culmination , and decline . And the restorer of Gothic seems to be liable to one of the following