smallest proportion, perhaps, derive their origin from Normandy, Discernment in the choice of talent and munificence in rewarding ability, may be ascribed to the successors of Rollo; but if the Normans are considered as a people, we shall fail to discover any valid title to the honours claimed for them by the fond patriotism of modern archæologists.

เ

เ

་

6

With respect to the introduction of the Gothic style into Normandy, Mr Gally Knight labours hard to prove that the cathedral of Coutances, ascribed by the French to the eleventh century, belongs to the thirteenth. The structure itself is in the advanced pointed style,' and exhibits all the characteristics of that style, in their greatest perfection. The original cathedral' shared the fate ' of so many of the towns of France, and was almost destroyed by the Normans in the ninth century.' In the year 1056, a new structure was completed under the auspices of Bishop Geoffrey, who was assisted in this undertaking by Tancred de Hauteville and his six sons, who, at the earnest solicitation of Geoffrey, sent ' a liberal portion of their Italian spoils to advance the restoration of the Norman cathedral,' which was consecrated in the pre'sence of William, Duke of Normandy, nine years before the conquest of England;' and the Norman Society of Antiquaries 'assert that the greater part of the existing building is the work of Bishop Geoffrey, or in other words, that the pointed style was adopted in France a hundred and thirty years before it appeared ' in England, and nearly as much before it appeared any where 'else.' But partly upon the authority of certain inscriptions, and partly from the peculiarities of the style,' Mr Gally Knight attributes the main portion of the building to John d' Essaye, Bishop of Coutances, who died in 1274; and if the whole of the 'cathedral was not rebuilt at that time, historical notices re'main, to point out the period when other alterations took place.' In 1356, soon after the battle of Poitiers, Geoffrey d' Harcourt besieged the cathedral, which was exceedingly damaged, so as to require extensive repairs, which were begun in 1371, and were not completed even in 1462. The miracle, therefore,' continues Mr Gally Knight, is a dream, and the existing cathedral belongs partly to the second half of the thirteenth century, and partly to a period by more than a century later than the above-men'tioned time.'

6

6

Lisieux having been destroyed by fire, about the year 1136, was rebuilt between 1140 and 1182; and the existing cathedral, exhibiting a plain and simple, but pure Gothic, with some Romanesque interpolations, has been generally attributed to this period by the Norman antiquaries, as well as in this country. Mr

Gally Knight says, No.- The real date of the existing church is disclosed in a single line of the Gallia Christiana, which, speaking of other things that occurred in the year 1226, men⚫tions, incidentally, that in the same year, the church of Lisieux ' was destroyed by fire, 1226,-Igne combusta est Lexoviensis Ecclesia; but, as Mr Knight admits, portions of the preceding fabric may have escaped the flame, and have been combined, as was frequently done, with the new work of the repairs' -a concession which destroys the whole force of his argument, and leaves the question exactly as it stood before.

6

A third example, the collegiate church of Mortain, is, or was, supposed by the French antiquaries to be the very structure erected in 1082 by Robert, the brother of the Conqueror. But, with the exception of one portal, the church of Mortain is in ' one style throughout, and that, the confirmed pointed-arches, ' windows, doors, all are pointed. Evidently anterior to Coutances, Mortain it no less evidently of a later date than the ' eleventh century. In style it more resembles the buildings of our Henry III. than English buildings of any other period. 'But nevertheless, it has some very peculiar features. The 'arches rest not on piers but pillars; and the capitals, mouldings, ' and ornaments, are the same with those which are found in the Norman churches in the round style;' the windows have re'cessed Norman pillars on either side;' and, combining the historical data (for which we must refer to Mr Knight's work) with the evidence of construction and style, 'I should incline,' he continues, to the opinion that the collegiate church of 'Mortain suffered during the struggle between John and Philip 'Augustus, either from the soldiers of the king, or the men of Britanny, and that it was rebuilt with the assistance of Philip . Augustus, after peace was restored.'

Such are the conclusions of Mr Gally Knight. They are entitled to great attention, and the Norman Society of Antiquaries have recently adopted the same assigned eras of construction, surrendering their dates at discretion. We would not hastily tax such a respectable body with want of moral courage; but it does not look well, that in so important a matter they should have made a victim of one of their most able and intelligent members; making him individually responsible for the opinions which had before been advocated in the Transactions' published under their collective authority. Yet it appears to us there was no necessity for the surrender, and that this long-vexed question in the chronology of art is as much open to doubt and discussion as it was before.

In Mr Gally Knight's strongest case, that of Lisieux, he admits that it may contain portions of an earlier edifice;--which, as we

thesis. It is a theory complete in itself,-enabling you to establish, à priori, every successive form developed in the rise, the progress, and the decline of the Gothic style, even to its most minute peculiarities. There is not a shaft or a mullion, a crocket or a cusp, a ballustrade or a niche, a vault or an archery, an archivola or a groin;-not a feature from the base of the door-way to the summit of the spire, which cannot be shown to be the necessary result of the principle assumed by the theory as the plastic origin. It is a theory which is never at fault, and never fails. You can give a reason for every portion of the construction; a consistent cause for every detail. The theory accounts equally for the plain and simple embossed roof' of Salisbury, and the interlaced and interwoven mouldings of Nuremberg or Ratisbon-for the dawn, the meridian, and the decay of architectural splendour. And yet it is perfectly certain that this theory, so consistent, so clear, so convincing--and our readers will readily collect, that we allude to the theory of Sir James Hallis not true and never could be true; that it has not the slightest foundation; and that this most ingenious hypothesis is a baseless vision, created solely by vivid fancy and inventive talent.

The number of writers, at home and abroad, who have discussed the origin of Gothic architecture, and each of whom drives his own theory round his own park, is probably now not much less than a hundred. Mr Britton, in his very useful Chronological History of Christian Architecture,' published in 1826, enumerates sixty-six different theories. But his list is not by any means complete, even up to his own time. The Germans and French, who have since written on the subject, would alone nearly complete the century; so great has been the impulse given recently to these enquiries, and perhaps by no individual more effectively and usefully than by Mr Britton himself; and the subject has been discussed with much and varied research, industry, and ability. Yet, as far as we can judge, no one of these enquirers ever persuaded another to adopt his own opinion. In those who approximate the most to each other, there is some distinction, with or without a difference,-some qualification, some protest. Yet, however much our theorists have disagreed upon other points, they all coincide in considering Gothic architecture as a progressive developement from the circular style. Combinations of vaulting, adaptation of patterns, influences of climateall these have been assigned as the causes which necessarily

* Mr Britton's last work, his Architectural Dictionary,' fully sustains his character for zeal and industry.

1

the origin of the proper Gothic style. The Sicilian examples, though they may leave this point undetermined, do a great deal more. The structures of the Normans in Sicily' present us with an entirely new page in the annals of architecture. They offer combinations equally valuable to the artist and to the historian; they are equally interesting to the eye and to the mind; and it is upon these considerations that their importance depends.

Amongst the numerous points which the examples given by Mr Knight elucidate, it is shown, in the clearest manner, that Gothic architecture did not acquire its characteristics from the East. The Normans in Sicily' produced a style, which, as Knight describes it,' was Saracenic in its arches, Roman in its 'pillars and capitals, Byzantine in its cupolas and mosaics, Nor'man and Greek in its enrichments.' But this was not Gothic. It was a combination leading to no result beyond that of splendour and magnificence. A nearer approach is found in the cathedral of Monreale, erected about 1186. Here are found pointed arches, as an integral portion of the system; but, as Mr Knight himself admits, 'nothing can less resemble the interior of Nor'man [Gothic] churches in the north than the interior of Mon'reale; and, whilst the mosaics are in the hard and peculiar style of Byzantine art, the scuptures of the capitals and mouldings, playful, delicate, and elaborate,-equal the finest specimens of Roman art. Generally speaking, the Sicilian structures, which approach nearest to Gothic, have many features in common to the same style, as it appears in the south of France;-as at Carpertras, Cavaillon, Aix, &c., where it is always allied to the Romanesque-Imperial. But it is very important to remark, that in all these Sicilian specimens, the real Gothic arch is never found, -Mr Knight's plates most honestly displaying not the characteristic central joint but the excavated key-stone; nor did the Gothic style in Sicily, though afterwards introduced and reintroduced by the Angevine and Arragonese monarchs, ever prosper or flourish. It never possessed the distinguishing character of loftiness and elevation.

But what is the bearing of the premises upon the general history of Gothic architecture? Which of the conflicting systems. do these Sicilian examples support or impugn? To which theory would an intelligent and unbiassed enquirer, investigating the question for the first time in his library, most willingly give his assent? There is no difficulty in the answer.-There is one writer alone who will satisfy him. Amongst the various theories respecting the origin of Gothic architecture, such an enquirer will find but one in which the facts presented by the Gothic structure present themselves in entire accordance with the hypo

thesis. It is a theory complete in itself,-enabling you to establish, à priori, every successive form developed in the rise, the progress, and the decline of the Gothic style, even to its most minute peculiarities. There is not a shaft or a mullion, a crocket or a cusp, a ballustrade or a niche, a vault or an archery, an archivola or a groin;-not a feature from the base of the door-way to the summit of the spire, which cannot be shown to be the necessary result of the principle assumed by the theory as the plastic origin. It is a theory which is never at fault, and never fails. You can give a reason for every portion of the construction; à consistent cause for every detail. The theory accounts equally for the plain and simple embossed roof' of Salisbury, and the interlaced and interwoven mouldings of Nuremberg or Ratisbon-for the dawn, the meridian, and the decay of architectural splendour. And yet it is perfectly certain that this theory, so consistent, so clear, so convincing-and our readers will readily collect, that we allude to the theory of Sir James Hallis not true and never could be true; that it has not the slightest foundation; and that this most ingenious hypothesis is a baseless vision, created solely by vivid fancy and inventive talent.

The number of writers, at home and abroad, who have discussed the origin of Gothic architecture, and each of whom drives his own theory round his own park, is probably now not much less than a hundred. Mr Britton, in his very useful' Chronological History of Christian Architecture,' published in 1826, enumerates sixty-six different theories. But his list is not by any means complete, even up to his own time. The Germans and

*

French, who have since written on the subject, would alone nearly complete the century; so great has been the impulse given recently to these enquiries, and perhaps by no individual more effectively and usefully than by Mr Britton himself; and the subject has been discussed with much and varied research, industry, and ability. Yet, as far as we can judge, no one of these enquirers ever persuaded another to adopt his own opinion. In those who approximate the most to each other, there is some distinction, with or without a difference, some qualification, some protest. Yet, however much our theorists have disagreed upon other points, they all coincide in considering Gothic architecture as a progressive developement from the circular style. Combinations of vaulting, adaptation of patterns, influences of climateall these have been assigned as the causes which necessarily

* Mr Britton's last work, his Architectural Dictionary,' fully sustains his character for zeal and industry.