ON THE ORIGIN, PROGRESS, AND DECLINE OF GOTHIC OR ENGLISH ECCLESIASTICAL ARCHITECTURE.

Amongst the vestiges of antiquity which abound in this country, are the visible memorials of those nations which have succeeded one another in the occupancy of this island. To the age of our Celtic ancestors, the earliest possessors of its soil, is ascribed the erection of those altars and temples of all but primeval antiquity, the Cromlechs and Stone Circles which lie scattered over the land; and these are conceived to have been derived from the Phoenicians, whose merchants first introduced amongst the aboriginal Britons the arts of incipient civilization. Of these most ancient relics the prototypes appear, as described in Holy Writ, in the pillar raised at Bethel by Jacob, in the altars erected by the Patriarchs, and in the circles of stone set up by Moses at the foot of Mount Sinai, and by Joshua at Gilgal. Many of these structures, perhaps from their very rudeness, have survived the vicissitudes of time, whilst there scarce remains a vestige of the temples erected in this island by the Romans; yet it is from Roman edifices that we derive, and can trace by a gradual transition, the progress of that peculiar kind of architecture called Gothic, which presents in its later stages the most striking contrast that can be imagined to its original precursor.

The Romans having conquered almost the whole of Britain in the first century, retained possession of the southern parts for nearly four hundred years; and during their occupancy they not only instructed the natives in the arts of civilization, but also with their aid, as we learn from Tacitus, began at an early period to erect temples and public edifices, though doubtless much inferior to those at Rome, in their municipal towns and cities. The Christian religion was also early introduced,3-* but for a time its progress was slow; nor was it till the conversion of Constantine, in the fourth century, that it was openly tolerated by the state, and churches were publicly constructed for its worshippers; though even before that event, as we are led to infer from the testimony of Gildas, the most ancient of our native historians, particular structures were appropriated for the performance of its divine mysteries: for that historian alludes to the British Christians as reconstructing the churches which had, in the Dioclesian persecution, been levelled to the ground. But in the fifth century Rome, oppressed on every side by enemies, and distracted with the vastness of her conquests, which she was no longer able to maintain, recalled her legions from Britain; and the Romanized Britons being left without protection, and having, during their subjection to the Romans, lost their ancient valour and love of liberty, in a short time fell a prey to the Northern Barbarians; in their extremity they called over the Saxons to assist them, when the latter perceiving their defenceless condition, turned round upon them, and made an easy conquest of this country. In the struggle which then took place, the churches were again destroyed, the priests were slain at the very altars,4-* and though the British Church was never annihilated, Paganism for a while became triumphant.

Towards the end of the sixth century, when Christianity was again propagated in this country by Augustine, Mellitus, and other zealous monks, St. Gregory, the head of the Papal church, and the originator of this mission, wrote to Mellitus not to suffer the Heathen temples to be destroyed, but only the idols found within them. These, and such churches built by the Romans as were then, though in a dilapidated state, existing, may reasonably be supposed to have been the prototypes of the Christian churches afterwards erected in this country.

In the early period of the empire the Romans imitated the Grecians in their buildings of magnitude and beauty, forming, however, a style of greater richness in detail, though less chaste in effect; and columns of the different orders, with their entablatures, were used to support and adorn their public structures: but in the fourth century, when the arts were declining, the style of architecture became debased, and the predominant features consisted of massive square piers or columns, without entablatures, from the imposts of which sprung arches of a semicircular form; and it was in rude imitation of this latter style that the Saxon churches were constructed.

The Roman basilicas, or halls of justice, some of which were subsequently converted into churches, to which also their names were given, furnished the plan for the internal arrangement of churches of a large size, being divided in the interior by rows of columns. From this division the nave and aisles of a church were derived; and in the semicircular recess at the one end for the tribune, we perceive the origin of the apsis, or semicircular east end, which one of the Anglo-Saxon, and many of our ancient Norman churches still present.

But independent of examples afforded by some few ancient Roman churches, and such of the temples and public buildings of the Romans as were then remaining in Britain, the Saxon converts were directed and assisted in the science of architecture by those missionaries from Rome who propagated Christianity amongst them; and during the Saxon dynasty architects and workmen were frequently procured from abroad, to plan and raise ecclesiastical structures. The Anglo-Saxon churches were, however, rudely built, and, as far as can be ascertained, with some few exceptions, were of no great dimensions and almost entirely devoid of ornamental mouldings, though in some instances decorative sculpture and mouldings are to be met with; but in the repeated incursions of the Danes, in the ninth and tenth centuries, so general was the destruction of the monasteries and churches, which, when the country became tranquil, were rebuilt by the Normans, that we have, in fact, comparatively few churches existing which we may reasonably presume, or really know, to have been erected in an Anglo-Saxon age. Many of the earlier writers on this subject have, however, caused much confusion by applying the term ‘Saxon’ to all churches and other edifices contradistinguished from the pointed style by semicircular-headed doorways, windows, and arches. But the vestiges of Anglo-Saxon architecture have been as yet so little studied or known, as to render it difficult to point out, either generally or in detail, in what their peculiarities consist: the style may, however, be said to have approximated in appearance much nearer to the Debased Roman style of masonry than the Norman, and to have been also much ruder: and in the most ancient churches, as in that at Dover Castle, and that at Bricksworth, we find arches constructed of flat bricks or tiles, set edgewise, which was also a Roman fashion. The masonry was chiefly composed of rubble, with ashlar or squared blocks of stone at the angles, disposed in courses in a peculiar manner.

The most common characteristic by which the Norman style is distinguished, is the semicircular or segmental arch, though this is to be met with also in the rare specimens of Anglo-Saxon masonry; but the Norman arches were more scientifically constructed: in their early state, indeed, quite plain, but generally concentric, or one arch receding within another, and in an advanced stage they were frequently ornamented with zig-zag and other mouldings. A variety of mouldings were also used in the decoration of the Norman portals or doorways, which were besides often enriched with a profusion of sculptured ornament. The Norman churches appear to have much excelled in size the lowly structures of the Saxons, and the cathedral and conventual churches were frequently carried to the height of three tiers or rows of arches, one above another; blank arcades were also used to ornament the walls.

The Norman style, in which an innumerable number of churches and monastic edifices were originally built or entirely reconstructed, continued without any striking alteration till about the latter part of the twelfth century, when a singular change began to take place: this was no other than the introduction of the pointed arch, the origin of which has never yet been satisfactorily explained, or the precise period clearly ascertained in which it first appeared; but as the lightness and simplicity of design to which the Early Pointed style was found to be afterwards convertible was in its incipient state unknown, it retained to the close of the twelfth century the heavy concomitants of the semicircular arch, with which indeed it was often intermixed: and from such intermixture it may be designated the Semi or Mixed Norman.

When the original Norman style of building was first broken through, by the introduction of the pointed arch, which was often formed by the intersection of semicircular arches, the facing of it, or architrave, was often ornamented with the zig-zag, billet, and other mouldings, in the same manner as the Norman semicircular arches: it also rested on round massive piers, and still retained many other features of Norman architecture. But from the time of its introduction to the close of the twelfth century, the pointed arch was gradually struggling with the semicircular arch for the mastery, and with success; for from the commencement of the thirteenth century, as nearly as can be ascertained, the style of building with semicircular arches was, with very few exceptions, altogether discarded, and superseded by its more elegant rival.

The mode of building with semicircular arches, massive piers, and thick walls with broad pilaster buttresses, was now laid aside; and the pointed arch, supported by more slender piers, with walls strengthened with graduating buttresses, of less width but of greater projection, were universally substituted in their stead. The windows, one of the most apparent marks of distinction, were at first long, narrow, and lancet-shaped: the heavy Norman ornaments, the zig-zag and other mouldings peculiar to the Norman and Semi-Norman styles, were now discarded; yet we often meet with certain decorative ornaments, as the tooth ornament, which, though sometimes found in late Norman work, is almost peculiar to the Early Pointed style; also the ball-flower, prevalent both in this and the style of the succeeding century. Many church towers were also capped with spires, which now first appear. This style prevailed generally throughout the thirteenth century, and is usually designated as the Early English.

Towards the close of the thirteenth century a perceptible, though gradual, transition took place to a richer and more ornamental mode of architecture. This was the style of the fourteenth century, and is known by the name of the Decorated English; but it chiefly flourished during the reigns of Edward the Second and Edward the Third, in the latter of which it attained a degree of perfection unequalled by preceding or subsequent ages. Some of the most prominent and distinctive marks of this style occur in the windows, which were greatly enlarged, and divided into many lights by mullions or tracery-bars running into various ramifications above, and dividing the heads into numerous compartments, forming either geometrical or flowing tracery. Triangular or pedimental canopies and pinnacles, more enriched than before with crockets and finials, yet without redundancy of ornament, also occur in the churches built during this century.

In the latter part of the fourteenth century another transition, or gradual change of style, began to be effected, in the discrimination of which an obvious distinction again occurs in the composition of the windows, some of which are very large: for the mullion-bars, instead of branching off in the head, in a number of curved lines, are carried up vertically, so as to form perpendicular divisions between the window-sill and the head, and do not present that combination of geometrical and flowing tracery observable in the style immediately preceding.

The frequent occurrence of panelled compartments, and the partial change of form in the arches, especially of doorways and windows, which in the latter part of the fifteenth century were often obtusely pointed and mathematically described from four centres, instead of two, as in the more simple pointed arch, and which from the period when this arch began to be prevalent was called the Tudor arch, together with a great profusion of minute ornament, mostly of a description not before in use, are the chief characteristics of the style of the fifteenth century, which by some of the earlier writers was designated as the Florid; though it has since received the more general appellation of the Perpendicular.

This style prevailed till the Reformation, at which period no country could vie with our own in the number of religious edifices, which had been erected in all the varieties of style that had prevailed for many preceding ages. Next to the magnificent cathedrals, the venerable monasteries and collegiate establishments, which had been founded and sumptuously endowed in every part of the kingdom, might most justly claim the preeminence; and many of the churches belonging to them were deservedly held in admiration for their grandeur and architectural elegance of design.

But the suppression of the monasteries tended in no slight degree to hasten the decline and fall of our ancient church architecture, to which other causes, such as the revival of the classic orders in Italy, also contributed. The churches belonging to the conventual foundations, which had been built at different periods by the monks or their benefactors, and the charges of erecting and decorating which from time to time in the most costly manner, had been defrayed out of the monastic revenues, and from private donations, being seized by the crown, were reduced to a state of ruin, and the sites on which they stood granted to dependants of the court. The former reverential feeling on these matters had greatly changed; and as the retention of some few of the ministerial habits, the square cap, the cope, the surplice, and hood, which were deemed expedient for the decent ministration of public worship, gave great offence to many, and was one of the most apparent causes which led to that schism amongst the Reformers, on points of discipline, which afterwards ended in the subversion, for a time, of the rites and ordinances of the Church of England, any attempt towards beautifying and adorning (other than with carved pulpits and communion-tables or altars) the places of divine worship, which were now stripped of many of their former ornamental accessories, would have been regarded and inveighed against as a popish and superstitious innovation; and a charge of this kind was at a later period preferred against Archbishop Laud. Parochial churches were, therefore, now repaired when fallen into a state of dilapidation, in a plain and inelegant mode, in complete variance with the richness and display observable in the style just preceding this event.

Details, originating from the designs of classic architecture, which had been partially revived in Italy, began early in the sixteenth century to make their appearance in this country, though as yet, except on tombs and in wood-work, we observe few of those peculiar features introduced as accessories in church architecture.

Hence many of our country churches, which were repaired or partly rebuilt in the century succeeding the Reformation, exhibit the marks of the style justly denominated Debased, to distinguish it from the former purer styles. Depressed and nearly flat arched doorways, with shallow mouldings, square-headed windows with perpendicular mullions and obtuse-pointed or round-headed lights, without foliations, together with a general clumsiness of construction, as compared with more ancient edifices, form the predominating features in ecclesiastical buildings of this kind: and in the reign of Charles the First an indiscriminate mixture of Debased Gothic and Roman architecture prevailing, we lose sight of every true feature of our ancient ecclesiastical styles, which were superseded by that which sprang more immediately from the Antique, the Roman, or Italian mode.