Architecture And Archæology.

the earliest original form of a church that exists ; for it does not appear to have been derived , like the basilica and round church , from Pagan structures . The solution of the problem , how to adapt a spherical dome to a square area must have introduced a neiv era in architectural composition . The value of the dome had long been recognised as a method of roofing at once firm ,

permanent , economical , and beautiful ; but , so far as Ave haA-e means of knOAving , it had hitherto been used only to cover buildings of a corresponding form , as tho Pantheon . The cruciform plan seems also to have been introduced , to a certain degree , for the sake of convenience , into the Roman basilica-, and its symbolical meaning would g ive it an additional recommendation in tho eyes of the

earlChrisy tians ; but the roof throughout being generally flat , the square of intersection would bo treated in the same way as the arms or aisles of the building , and neither receive nor suggest any additional height , externally or internally . " When , liOAvevci-, it was resolved to take advantage of tho domical method iu roofing the square of intersection , making the other roofs of the building cylindrical or

semidomical , according as the limbs of the cross ivere rectangular or apsidal , then , since the base of the dome had to rest by means of pendentives on the croAvn of the four arches , its apex necessarily exceeded them in height , and consequently rose above the vaultings , supposing them to correspond with the arches of intersection . This is true , not only when the dome is a complete hemisphere supported by

pendentives , but also where it is a part of the same hemisphere to ivhich the peiidentiA'es themselves belong , or any other segment of a sphere Ai-hatever . Hence the adaptation of a dome to the square of intersection in a cross church requires a superstructure raised higher than the arches , and consequently suggests one raised higher than the Avails

and roofs , both externally and internally . Probably S . Sophia in Constantinople was not the first example of a dome resting on four arches ; so bold an experiment could hai-c been tried on so large a scale for the first time . Many of the domical churches in the eastern part of Europe are small in their dimensions , aud have no architectural detail but Avhat might be of considerable

antiquity . If AVO cannot confidently pronounce any particular specimen to be of a date earlier than the reign of Justinian , Ave cannot positively deny tho existence of such at the present day , and I think AVC may at least assume that those to ivhich we now have access are fair representatives of some of the earliest original Christian structures ever designed .

S . Sophia is somewhat unique among Bj-Kantine churches , and has rather the character of the mosques which surround it , and Avhich were built alter its pattern , than of the churebs generally erected in the Fast at that time and for many succeeding centuries . S . Irene , now converted into au armory , is the next in the size to S . Sophia of those in Constantinople , but very much inferior in dimensions , the diameter of the dome being , if I remember ri ght , less

than one-third . I cannot tell IIOAV far the present outline is original ; it is perhaps the more pleasing of the two . The outiinesof some of the old Greek churches in Constantinople , and in and about Athens are extremely graceful , I niaA- say noble , as giving to structures smaller in actual scale , an air of dignity and importance . The central dome assumes the form of a circular or polygonal tower , of some elevation ,

and there is a certain breadth about the composition which prevents any idea of meanness . The actual , ground-plan is square , but the upper stage from Avhich tho dome or ' toiver rises , is a Greek cross . To the ivestivard is a narthex cr porch , ivhich is sometimes covered Avith another dome , lower than tho principal one . The pendentives supporting the dome required themselves tho support , abutment , and

protection of the Avails above the springs and haunches of the arches on which they rested , and by raising those walls aboA o the crown of tho arches additional strength was given , and tho ivhole fabric consolidated . Hence the round or polygonal drum of the dome mostly stands upon a square base , slightly raised aboA-e the level of tho other Avails ; and when the central dome Avas adopted , as it soon Avas , in the AVestern church , at the intersection of a Latin cross , the square base often became a square tower , enclosing within

itself a circular or polygonal dome , Avhich then formed only an internal feature . This is an arrangement which prevails through the Avhole of the south of France , and in parts of the central and more northern provinces . In Italy the central toivcr is generally a IOAV octagon . As a satisfactory outline Avas thus obtained , the central tower ivas used ei'di Avhen no dome or lantern ivas shown internally .

If a campanile was required , this was provided , not by raising the central lantern to the requisite height , bub by building an independent toiver , as in tho basilican churches . The combination of the central lantern ivith the belfry toAver produces some of the finest and most picturesque effects of outline in ecclesiastical architecture . Such combinations arc mostly to be found in the Romanesque period . I think

AVO meet ivith thein more often in Italy than in France , where the central tower first attained sufficient hei ght to cover the lantern , and afterwards grew still' higher , and became the highest and principal steeple of the church . Whether this was an improvement , is a matter of taste . For my own part , I am very partial to a fine central toiver or spire , but I am not certain Avhothei-, on true architectural

principles , Ave ought not to prefer the low massive lantern of tho Italian Romanesque , combined Avith the taller and more slender campanile ; the central lantern giving by its breath dignity to the most important part of the building , namely , the intersection of the cross , and the lofty toiver giving the same feature A-alue by its contrast , and breaking the monotony of outline . Add to ivhich , the arrangement

is evidently a good one as regards convenience , by detaching the belfry from the area- ofthe church , and allowing Avails of any degree of massiveness that may be required . Tho cathedrals of Piaccnza and Parma , the cathedral and another church at Asti , -many of tho churches in and near Pai-ia

and Milan , and the cathedral of Monzu , present fine examples of tho above arrangement ; sonic of these arc later than the Romanesque era , but retain in great measure tho general character of the style . In England Ave have unfortunately so little unmixed and unaltered Romanesque , or as I Avonld rather call it , Norman , that it is difficult OYen to imagine a typical example , and such buildings as

Tewkesluuy , Southwell , and Romsey , show how grand must have been tho outline of a perfect English church of the first class in that period . But Normandy furnishes us ivith better preserved examples of tho style from Avhich Ave may form an estimate of its general aspect and character . The well-known church of St . George , Bocherville is , I belici r e , as pure a specimen as can be found , and its outline , simple

as it is , seems to admit of no improvement . It may be questioned Aviiethcr the pressnt ivoodcn spire agrees ivith the original design ; I am , however , speaking of the building so far as the actual masonry and . the necessary roofs arc concerned . I question whether the development of tho Pointed Gothic really improved upon the best outlines exhibited in the Romanesque . \ V " e certainly gave

greater height , and varied , perhaps confused , the general outline of the building by pinnacles and buttresses . Where the central tower was retained , it Avas frequently raised to a much greater height than its use as a lantern rendered , necessary . The central tower of York , which is open nearly to tho top , is an exceptional instance , rather than a type of Gothic central towersand is unquestionably ono 01

, the finest , if not tho i r cry finest , in existence . And it is certainly one of those that arc least removed from the Romanesque model . Again on the Continent , tho central toiver was altogether sacrificed to the attainment of heio-ht iu tho Avhole

biifidinpitself , Avhich , in consequence , often appeared rather a shapeless mass than a fine architectural composition . The profusion of pinnacles employed seems rather intended to disguise tho ivant of design , than to mark , as they ought to do , important points and divisions . Some of the best outlines in Normandy , comprehending tiie low central tower , and loftier , but less massive ivcstcrn onesthough Gothic in

, detail , as that of Lisicux , are ivholl y Romanesque in character , and those which assume more of tho Gothic arc not improvements : the heightening of the English central steeple , though the effect resulting from it is sometimes extremely beautiful , as at Salisbury , is seldom carried out Avithout some sacrifice as regards internal arrana'cmcnt ! or