ART. II.-CHURCH ARCHITECTURE.

(1.) Winkle's Architectural and Picturesque Illustrations of the Cathedral Churches of England and Wales. London. 1836.

(2.) London; An Historical and Topographical Account of the British Metropolis. By Charles Knight. London. 1851. (3.) British Almanac and Companion. Art.-Public Improvements, 1850 to 1865. London.

IT has been set down among artists and builders as a maxim,-one established by all previous history,—that the Architecture of any age or country must always be an expression of the power, civilization, religion and culture of the people by whom it was erected; that the 'dark-red colonnades,' roofless temples, and massive Pyramids of Egypt, are as indicative of the character, manners and location of those who reared them, as the more delicate, cognate and sharply cut edifices of Athens or of Rome. These indications are, of course, to be construed with some latitude. We cannot expect, from a mere inspection of the artistic developments of an unknown people, to deduce exactly what may have been their civil polity or religious culture; yet there will always be found among them some certain traces, from which may be filled up a tolerably clear outline of the social fabric to which they belonged. In the instance quoted, we would infer, from the great masses of the Egyptian structures, that the government was despotic, and the people slaves. The square-based Pyramids, intimate of Geometry and Mysticism, and its vegetable and serpentine gods, presuppose a country of wide plains and a single fertilizing river. Such would probably be a critical judgment, without the aid of history. And, reversing the problem, we might suppose that if Plato or Pythagoras were to revisit our world as it is now, with the knowledge only of

the times in which they lived, they would, on entering a Christian Church, pronounce it to be the temple of an unknown god. That god whom some of the philosophers of their age had 'ignorantly worshipped.'

6

Now if the maxim we have quoted be true in a practical sense, and any one were to ask, to what particular stage of civil polity or moral and religious development the Architecture, which we see every day rising about us, would be referred by any unbiased critic of future times, who should have nothing else left to judge from, the question seems not susceptible of a very ready answer. The main features of all our buildings, particularly such as are meant for public purposes, are, essentially, copies from structures executed many centuries ago. Every new house has had its type and pattern in times more or less remote, and all our art of this kind seems merely imitative, an exemplification of the hopeless wisdom of the preacher, that there is nothing new under the sun.' One would have thought, in a country like ours, peopled out of a general muster of all the nations of the earth, that the purpose for which any house had been built, the character of the climate, and the habits and modes of living of the citizens, must have tended as primary conditions to modify the style of building, and thus, by adaptation, to produce a peculiar, original and American Architecture. These conditions have, undoubtedly, had some influence; but, hitherto, the effect has been only to introduce a more composite, and, if the expression be allowable, servile order of construction. So that if our hypothetical critic of future times should ever be called upon for an opinion, he would be puzzled to decide whether the edifices of our day belonged to the era of steam, telegraphs, and paper money, or to those of Constantine or William the Conqueror. By the way, we hold it a great mistake that, among the many emblematic devices which fill the tympana of our public buildings, none has as yet been elaborated as representing these great moving powers of modern civilization; that we have not made some part of a steamer, a locomotive, or a printing press classic, as the seal and cypher of these govern

ing forces of our present world. We refer, of course, to edifices erected for civil and economical uses.

This composite or imitated style of building is found in all the Church Architecture of the present day; which, whether it be called Early, or Mediæval, Vernacular, or Decorated, or Eclectic, is all Gothic, of some age or other; moulded after the same primitive pattern, and differing only in dimension and material. The name given to this style of Architecture, the Pointed or Gothic, seems by no means correctly derived from its early uses and history. It began with the Christian Church, was first used in religious foundations, and might much more appropriately be termed Christian than Gothic. Indeed, we have sometimes thought that those writers who treat of the truth of the Christian Doctrine and the evidences of its Divine origin, might derive corroborative arguments from a critical study of the construction and ornature of the first Christian Churches, particularly those of them which belong to the era between the sixth and tenth centuries. To us, the style has always seemed as springing from and a fitting exponent of the true Faith then first given to the world. At any rate, the manner was entirely original, and not allied to any of the modes of construction then practiced. We quite agree with the principal architects of our day, who assert that this manner, improperly called Gothic, is peculiarly fitted for all religious edifices; the secret of which is simply this, that it was originally designed and elaborated for this very purpose, by men of true faith and fervent piety; for which reason many of its noblest specimens will always remain the outward creation and expression of these two superhuman agencies. To be sensible of its peculiar characteristics, we should transport ourselves, in fancy, back to the time of its origin, and become a little familiar with its history.

No one who has compared a Grecian or even a Roman Temple, whether of an earlier or later period, with a Christian. Church, can have failed to notice the great difference, or rather contrast between the Architecture of the two buildings. In the one, the pagan edifice, the walls are plain, almost without windows; relieved on the exterior only by pilasters and the

projection of cornice and architrave; while the surrounding colonnade or peristyle limits the space which can be used, either by the audience or ministers, in any public act. The emblems and statuary are all that indicate the uses of the building. The entrances are low and rectilineal, and the interior dark and mysterious. The part of the building designed for concourse or meetings of the people, is confined to the porticoes, as if its public use was from without and not within. Such are the distinguishing features of all those Temples, even after the round Roman arch, at first used only in bridge and gallery, had gradually developed itself into the dome, and given birth to a new order of building, the last manifestation of Roman greatness.

Now, in comparing such a Temple with a Christian Church, we become at once aware of a different purpose in the builder; a purpose to enliven and enlighten both the exterior and interior of the edifice; leading our thoughts from Altar, Ritual and Ceremony below, up through clustering columns and leafy tracery, as they widen gradually into the vaulted and ample roof; and thence, higher still, where tall spire and frequent pinnacle point evermore upward on the road to heaven. This character belongs even to the simplest and smallest of the early Churches. The pointed window, steep roof, slender pillar, with its light, springing arch, are present in all of them ; unmistakable indices of the pure, humble and upward-bound faith of the worshipper below. It is worthy of notice, that this pointed and lance-form Architecture, which prevails in all the religious foundations in Western Europe, is of an entirely different pattern from that which obtained in Rome, at the downfall of the Western Empire. It is therefore not a copy, or continuation, but decidedly Christian and original. In the style of the decaying Empire, the dome or cupola had become a principal feature, and was adopted in the early Churches. throughout Italy, still distinguishing them from their kindred edifices of the West, which are all Gothic. A quality of this later Architecture, which commends it to modern use, and peculiarly fits it for religious purposes, is, that it admits of almost unlimited extension. We may observe, that although

many of the larger Churches had been originally founded in the form of a Cross, with nave, transept and aisles, yet in many of them the primitive structures were afterwards much enlarged by succeeding princes and patrons: one adding a chapel; another, a porch; a third, cloisters or a chapter house; each succeeding patron aiming to rival or excel the work of his predecessor. Still in such cases the symmetry has been rarely lost or spoiled by incongruity of design, or imperfect or overwrought execution. The additions seem only to increase the number of changeful shapes, which the structure presents when viewed from different points without, and no more violate the unity of the whole, than an additional crystal of the same family and formation can impair the agreement and beauty of a well set group of brilliants.

There is a circumstance in relation to these earlier structures, which we know not whether to attribute to the low estimation in which all mechanical labor was then held, or to the purer life and simpler faith of the laborers themselves. It is this, that in nearly all of the older and most elaborate of them, the name of the architect has no where been preserved; either in the annals of the Churches themselves or in contemporary history. The ashes of Sir Christopher Wren (he was a layman, and lived at a later period,) do indeed repose under the dome of St. Paul, which he planned and builded; but in most of the other Cathedral Churches of England, though we know the names of the modern artists who may have repaired or restored the decayed portions of these venerable structures, there is no mention made of those by whom they were originally designed. During the Middle Ages, the upper Orders of the Clergy seem to have been skilful in this department of Art; so much so, that they were often employed in civil constructions. In the year 1073,* Gundulph, Bishop of Rochester, was appointed to repair and reconstruct certain portions of the Tower of London. It is even conjectured, that the building known now as the White Tower, and which constitutes the main strength of the fortress, was erected at that time by this

*London. By Charles Knight. Article, Tower.