DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1457#0136
108 CAPTAIN GROSES
jectn. If the supposition is well grounded,
it seems likely that many ancient buildings of
this kind, or at least their remains, would be
found in those countries from whence it is
said to have been brought; parts of which
have at different times been visited by several
(so the Italians called what was not after the Roman style),
though the Goths were rather destroyers than builders: I
think it should with more reason be called the Saracen style;
for those people wanted neither arts nor learning; and after
we in the West had lost both, we borrowed again from them,
out of their Arabic books, what they with great diligence had
translated from the Greeks. They were zealots in their reli-
gion; and wherever they conquered (which was with amazing
rapidity) erected mosques and caravanseras in haste, which
obliged them to fall into another way of building; for they
built their mosques round, disliking the Christian form of a
cross. The old quarries, whence the ancients took their large
blocks of marble for whole columns and architraves, were
neglected; and they thought both impertinent. Their car-
riage was by camels; therefore their buildings were fitted for
small stones, and columns of their own fancy, consisting of
many pieces; and their arches pointed without key-stones,
which they thought too heavy. The reasons were the same in
our northern climates, abounding in freestone, but wanting
marble." Wren's Parentalia, p. 297-
71 " Modern Gothic, as it is called, is deduced from a dif-
ferent quarter; it is distinquished by the lightness of its work,
by the excessive boldness of its elevations, and of its sections;
by the delicacy, profusion, and extravagant fancy of its orna-
ments. The pillars of this kind are as slender as those of the
ancient Gothic are massive: such productions, so airy, cannot
admit the heavy Goths for their author; how can be attributed
to them a style of architecture which was only introduced in
the tenth century of our asra? several years after the destruc-
tion of all those kingdoms which the Goths had raised upon
the ruins of the Roman empire, and at a time when the very
name of Goth was entirely forgotten: from all the marks or
the new architecture it can only be attributed to the Moors;
or, what is the same thing, to the Arabians or Saracens; who
jectn. If the supposition is well grounded,
it seems likely that many ancient buildings of
this kind, or at least their remains, would be
found in those countries from whence it is
said to have been brought; parts of which
have at different times been visited by several
(so the Italians called what was not after the Roman style),
though the Goths were rather destroyers than builders: I
think it should with more reason be called the Saracen style;
for those people wanted neither arts nor learning; and after
we in the West had lost both, we borrowed again from them,
out of their Arabic books, what they with great diligence had
translated from the Greeks. They were zealots in their reli-
gion; and wherever they conquered (which was with amazing
rapidity) erected mosques and caravanseras in haste, which
obliged them to fall into another way of building; for they
built their mosques round, disliking the Christian form of a
cross. The old quarries, whence the ancients took their large
blocks of marble for whole columns and architraves, were
neglected; and they thought both impertinent. Their car-
riage was by camels; therefore their buildings were fitted for
small stones, and columns of their own fancy, consisting of
many pieces; and their arches pointed without key-stones,
which they thought too heavy. The reasons were the same in
our northern climates, abounding in freestone, but wanting
marble." Wren's Parentalia, p. 297-
71 " Modern Gothic, as it is called, is deduced from a dif-
ferent quarter; it is distinquished by the lightness of its work,
by the excessive boldness of its elevations, and of its sections;
by the delicacy, profusion, and extravagant fancy of its orna-
ments. The pillars of this kind are as slender as those of the
ancient Gothic are massive: such productions, so airy, cannot
admit the heavy Goths for their author; how can be attributed
to them a style of architecture which was only introduced in
the tenth century of our asra? several years after the destruc-
tion of all those kingdoms which the Goths had raised upon
the ruins of the Roman empire, and at a time when the very
name of Goth was entirely forgotten: from all the marks or
the new architecture it can only be attributed to the Moors;
or, what is the same thing, to the Arabians or Saracens; who