DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29898#0125
Pakt I.
INTRODUCTOKY.
89
rained to form the Indian and allied Eastern styles into a separate
volume, which will include not only the Buddhist and Hindu styles,
but the Indian Saracenic, which, in a strictly logical arrangement,
ought to be classified with the AYestern style bearing the same name.
The styles of the New AVorld, having as yet no acknowledged
connection with those of the Olcl, may be for the present treated of
anywhere.
The fourth ancl last great division, forming the fourth volume of
the present work, is that of the “ Modern or Copying Styles of
Architecture,” meaning thereby those which are the products of
the renaissance of the classical styles that marked the epoch of
the cinquecento period. These have since that time prevailed gene-
rally in Europe to the present day, and are now making the tour
of the world. Within the lirnits of the present century it is true that
the copying of the classical styles to some extent w7ere superseded
by a more servile imitation of those of mediasval art. The forms con-
sequently changed, but the principles remained the same.
It would of course be easy to point out minor objections to this or
to any scheme, but on the whole it will be found to meet the exigencies
of the case as we now know it, as well or perhaps better than any other.
The greatest difficulty in carrying it out is to ascertain how far the
geographical arrangement should be made to supersede the chrono-
logical and ethnographical. Whether, for instance, Italy should be
considered as a whole, or if the buildings of the eastern coast should
not be described as belonging to the Byzantine, and those of the
western coast to the Gothic kingdom 1 AVhether the description of
the Temple at Jerusalem should stop short with the rebuilcling by
Zorobabel, or be continued till its final completion under Herod ? If
the former course is pursued, we cut in two a perfectly consecutive
narrative ; if the latter, we get far in advance of our chronological
sequence.
In both of these instances, as in many others, it is a choice of
difficulties, and where frequently the least strictly logical mocle of
proceeding may be found the most convenient.
After all, the real difficulty lies not so much in arranging the
materials as in weighing the relative importance to be assigned to each
division. In wandering over so vast a field it is difficult to prevent
personal preclilection from interfering with purely logical criticism.
Although architecture is the most mechanical of the fine arts, and
consequently the most amenable to scientific treatment, still as a fine
art it must be felt to be appreciated, and when the feelings come into
play the reason is sometimes in clanger. Though strict impartiality
has been airned at in assigning the true limits to each of the divisions
above pointed out, few probably will be of the same opinion as to the
degree of success which has been achieved in the attempt.
INTRODUCTOKY.
89
rained to form the Indian and allied Eastern styles into a separate
volume, which will include not only the Buddhist and Hindu styles,
but the Indian Saracenic, which, in a strictly logical arrangement,
ought to be classified with the AYestern style bearing the same name.
The styles of the New AVorld, having as yet no acknowledged
connection with those of the Olcl, may be for the present treated of
anywhere.
The fourth ancl last great division, forming the fourth volume of
the present work, is that of the “ Modern or Copying Styles of
Architecture,” meaning thereby those which are the products of
the renaissance of the classical styles that marked the epoch of
the cinquecento period. These have since that time prevailed gene-
rally in Europe to the present day, and are now making the tour
of the world. Within the lirnits of the present century it is true that
the copying of the classical styles to some extent w7ere superseded
by a more servile imitation of those of mediasval art. The forms con-
sequently changed, but the principles remained the same.
It would of course be easy to point out minor objections to this or
to any scheme, but on the whole it will be found to meet the exigencies
of the case as we now know it, as well or perhaps better than any other.
The greatest difficulty in carrying it out is to ascertain how far the
geographical arrangement should be made to supersede the chrono-
logical and ethnographical. Whether, for instance, Italy should be
considered as a whole, or if the buildings of the eastern coast should
not be described as belonging to the Byzantine, and those of the
western coast to the Gothic kingdom 1 AVhether the description of
the Temple at Jerusalem should stop short with the rebuilcling by
Zorobabel, or be continued till its final completion under Herod ? If
the former course is pursued, we cut in two a perfectly consecutive
narrative ; if the latter, we get far in advance of our chronological
sequence.
In both of these instances, as in many others, it is a choice of
difficulties, and where frequently the least strictly logical mocle of
proceeding may be found the most convenient.
After all, the real difficulty lies not so much in arranging the
materials as in weighing the relative importance to be assigned to each
division. In wandering over so vast a field it is difficult to prevent
personal preclilection from interfering with purely logical criticism.
Although architecture is the most mechanical of the fine arts, and
consequently the most amenable to scientific treatment, still as a fine
art it must be felt to be appreciated, and when the feelings come into
play the reason is sometimes in clanger. Though strict impartiality
has been airned at in assigning the true limits to each of the divisions
above pointed out, few probably will be of the same opinion as to the
degree of success which has been achieved in the attempt.