DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6910#0065
TEMPLES AND ROUND CHURCHES. 41
brought forward (see the annexed Prints) will perhaps stagger the faith, or remove
the doubts, of those writers who contend that the pointed arch, when once adopted,
completely superseded the semi-circular. Such antiquaries should recollect that
new fashions, with every other species of novelty, are not instantaneously and
universally embraced; but that they become prevalent according to their utility, and
in proportion to the influence of the inventor. Every new fashion has also to
contend with the prejudices of man, and with his established customs. The revo-
lutions of architecture are not exempt from these obstacles; and we should not,
therefore, be surprised in beholding two styles of arches, kc. employed in the
same building.* In the circular parts of the churches at Northampton and at the
Temple, this variety of style is decidedly manifest. Here the pointed arch is
displayed, from its first formation, (the intersection of the semi-circular arches in
the Temple Church) through the gradation of the plain, simple, almost straight-
lined triangle, in the church at Northampton, to that of the Temple, where the same
shaped arch is adorned with mouldings, and where it springs from the capitals of
clustered columns.
The origin of round churches, in England, has been generally attributed to the
Jews. This opinion was very prevalent in Cambridge, till Mr. Essex corrected it
by his historical observations, which were published in the sixth volume of the
Archseologia. " Their temple at Jerusalem," he observes, " was not of the circular
form, neither was the tabernacle of Moses ; nor do we find the modern Jews affect
that figure in building their synagogues. It has, however, been generally supposed,
that the round church at Cambridge, that at Northampton, and some others, were
built for synagogues, by the Jews, while they were permitted to dwell in those
Places ; but as no probable reason can be assigned for this supposition, and I think
it is very certain that the Jews, who were settled in Cambridge, had their synagogue,
and probably dwelled together, in a part of the town now called the Jewry, so we
may reasonably conclude, the round churches we find in other parts of this kingdom
were not built' by the Jews for synagogues, whatever the places may be called in
which they stand."f As these churches arc evidently not of Roman architecture,
and as they were not erected by the Jews, we are naturally curious to ascertain
when, and by whom, they were built. There appears to be four perfect examples
* I humbly offer this, merely as a hint, or a remark en passant, at present ; in another place I hope to
develope and elucidate the subject,
t Archseologia, Vol. VI. p. 166.
G. VOL. I.
brought forward (see the annexed Prints) will perhaps stagger the faith, or remove
the doubts, of those writers who contend that the pointed arch, when once adopted,
completely superseded the semi-circular. Such antiquaries should recollect that
new fashions, with every other species of novelty, are not instantaneously and
universally embraced; but that they become prevalent according to their utility, and
in proportion to the influence of the inventor. Every new fashion has also to
contend with the prejudices of man, and with his established customs. The revo-
lutions of architecture are not exempt from these obstacles; and we should not,
therefore, be surprised in beholding two styles of arches, kc. employed in the
same building.* In the circular parts of the churches at Northampton and at the
Temple, this variety of style is decidedly manifest. Here the pointed arch is
displayed, from its first formation, (the intersection of the semi-circular arches in
the Temple Church) through the gradation of the plain, simple, almost straight-
lined triangle, in the church at Northampton, to that of the Temple, where the same
shaped arch is adorned with mouldings, and where it springs from the capitals of
clustered columns.
The origin of round churches, in England, has been generally attributed to the
Jews. This opinion was very prevalent in Cambridge, till Mr. Essex corrected it
by his historical observations, which were published in the sixth volume of the
Archseologia. " Their temple at Jerusalem," he observes, " was not of the circular
form, neither was the tabernacle of Moses ; nor do we find the modern Jews affect
that figure in building their synagogues. It has, however, been generally supposed,
that the round church at Cambridge, that at Northampton, and some others, were
built for synagogues, by the Jews, while they were permitted to dwell in those
Places ; but as no probable reason can be assigned for this supposition, and I think
it is very certain that the Jews, who were settled in Cambridge, had their synagogue,
and probably dwelled together, in a part of the town now called the Jewry, so we
may reasonably conclude, the round churches we find in other parts of this kingdom
were not built' by the Jews for synagogues, whatever the places may be called in
which they stand."f As these churches arc evidently not of Roman architecture,
and as they were not erected by the Jews, we are naturally curious to ascertain
when, and by whom, they were built. There appears to be four perfect examples
* I humbly offer this, merely as a hint, or a remark en passant, at present ; in another place I hope to
develope and elucidate the subject,
t Archseologia, Vol. VI. p. 166.
G. VOL. I.