DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29898#0124
88
ANCIENT ARCHITECTURE.
Part I.
The seconcl to be called either “ Mediseval,” or more properly
“ Christian Art.” This again subdivides itself into three easily-under-
stood dhdsions. 1. The Byzantine or Eastern Christian style ; 2. The
Romanesque or transitional style which prevailed between the Roman
and the Gothic styles; and 3. The Gothic or Western Christian style.
The Byzantine style comes first because its development was so rapid
that already in the 6th century it had reached its culminating period,
and throughout the Middle Ages it exercised considerable influence in
various parts of Italy and France ; an influence the extent of which it
is only jDossible to follow after its study. It is difficult, for instance, to
understand the churches in Ravenna or St. Mark’s in Yenice, or the
churches at Perigueux, and in the Charente, until the churches of Sta.
Sophia and of St. Sergius, Constantinople, and of St. Demetrius, Thessa-
lonica, have been studied; and although it is advisable when describing
the style to carry it through its later developments in Greece, in
Russia, and in the East, these variations and developments are not of
a nature to clistract the reader or cause him to lose siaffit of the leadine:
characteristics of the style. There is some clifficulty in knowing where
to clraw the line between the Romanesque and the Gothic style ; as
generally accepted now, the term Romanesque includes all the round-
arched Gothic styles, and although many of the leading principles of
Gothic work are to be found entering into builclings constructed prior
to t-he introduction of the pointed arch into transverse and diagonal
ribbed arch vaulting, it was this latter which led to the great develop-
ment of the Gothic style in Erance, England, and elsewhere in the 12th
and 13th centuries.
The third great division of the subject I would suggest might con-
veniently be denominated “ Pagan.” 1 It would comprise all those
minor miscellaneous styles not included in the two previous divisions.
Commencing with the Saracenic, it would include the Buddhist,
Hindu, and Chinese styles, the Mexican and Peruvian, and lastly
that mysterious group which for want of a better name I have else-
where designated as “ Rude Stone Monuments.” 2 dSTo very con-
secutive arrangement can be formed for these styles. They generally
have little connection with each other, and are so much less important
than the others that their mode of treatment is of far less consequence.
Nor is it necessary to attempt any exact classification of these at
present, as, owing to the convenience of jmblication, it has been deter-
1 The derivation of the two words
Heathen and Pagan seems to indicate the
relative importance ot' these two terms
very mnch in the degree it is hore wished
to express. Heatken is generally under-
stood to be derived from edvos, a uation
orpeople; andPaganfrom Fcigus, Pagani,
a village, or villagers. Both are uscd liere
not as terms of reproach, hut as indica-
tive of their heing non-Christian, which
is what it is wished to express, and was
the original intention of the term.
2 ‘ Rude Stone Monumcnts,’ 1 vol. Svo-
Murray, 1872.
ANCIENT ARCHITECTURE.
Part I.
The seconcl to be called either “ Mediseval,” or more properly
“ Christian Art.” This again subdivides itself into three easily-under-
stood dhdsions. 1. The Byzantine or Eastern Christian style ; 2. The
Romanesque or transitional style which prevailed between the Roman
and the Gothic styles; and 3. The Gothic or Western Christian style.
The Byzantine style comes first because its development was so rapid
that already in the 6th century it had reached its culminating period,
and throughout the Middle Ages it exercised considerable influence in
various parts of Italy and France ; an influence the extent of which it
is only jDossible to follow after its study. It is difficult, for instance, to
understand the churches in Ravenna or St. Mark’s in Yenice, or the
churches at Perigueux, and in the Charente, until the churches of Sta.
Sophia and of St. Sergius, Constantinople, and of St. Demetrius, Thessa-
lonica, have been studied; and although it is advisable when describing
the style to carry it through its later developments in Greece, in
Russia, and in the East, these variations and developments are not of
a nature to clistract the reader or cause him to lose siaffit of the leadine:
characteristics of the style. There is some clifficulty in knowing where
to clraw the line between the Romanesque and the Gothic style ; as
generally accepted now, the term Romanesque includes all the round-
arched Gothic styles, and although many of the leading principles of
Gothic work are to be found entering into builclings constructed prior
to t-he introduction of the pointed arch into transverse and diagonal
ribbed arch vaulting, it was this latter which led to the great develop-
ment of the Gothic style in Erance, England, and elsewhere in the 12th
and 13th centuries.
The third great division of the subject I would suggest might con-
veniently be denominated “ Pagan.” 1 It would comprise all those
minor miscellaneous styles not included in the two previous divisions.
Commencing with the Saracenic, it would include the Buddhist,
Hindu, and Chinese styles, the Mexican and Peruvian, and lastly
that mysterious group which for want of a better name I have else-
where designated as “ Rude Stone Monuments.” 2 dSTo very con-
secutive arrangement can be formed for these styles. They generally
have little connection with each other, and are so much less important
than the others that their mode of treatment is of far less consequence.
Nor is it necessary to attempt any exact classification of these at
present, as, owing to the convenience of jmblication, it has been deter-
1 The derivation of the two words
Heathen and Pagan seems to indicate the
relative importance ot' these two terms
very mnch in the degree it is hore wished
to express. Heatken is generally under-
stood to be derived from edvos, a uation
orpeople; andPaganfrom Fcigus, Pagani,
a village, or villagers. Both are uscd liere
not as terms of reproach, hut as indica-
tive of their heing non-Christian, which
is what it is wished to express, and was
the original intention of the term.
2 ‘ Rude Stone Monumcnts,’ 1 vol. Svo-
Murray, 1872.