1829]

Letters of an Architect from France, Italy, and Greece. By Joseph Woods, F.A.S. F.L.S. F.G.S. &c. 2 vols. 4to.

THE chief intention of Mr. Woods, in this excellent publication, is to exhibit in copious architectural details the character of the Greek, Roman, and Gothic styles in France and Italy. The articles and subjects are so ample and various, that an enumeration would be only an index, of no utility in a Review, because it must omit the very essence of the, work, the architectural criticism; in fact, would be only the references at the bottom of a page, without the text. We shall therefore confine ourselves to one style, the Gothic, and shall briefly premise, that the French Gothic appears to us, in its best light, only a tasteful disposition of exuberant ornament, very seldom in good keeping; and that the Italian Gothic is a mongrel style, which breaks every thing into small pieces, and amalgamates the incongruous and inharmonious, in very bad taste. But whatever may be the mixed character of numerous English buildings, still the styles of the several æras are homogeneous, but this we cannot say of the foreign. If we think correctly, what we should call distinctive peculiarities of the Saxon or Norman, were intermixed with the Gothic, during the whole of its existence; whereas, among us, such archaisms were, after certain periods, wholly ejected. We shall, however, here terminate our remarks, because we think that our readers will be far more edified and pleased by those of Mr. Woods, and because we shall be copious in our extracts. We shall begin with one, which shows the superior fitness of the Gothic style for Churches.

"It is totally impossible that any style of building should be peculiarly calculated for a particular set of opinions. Some Protestant writers attribute to Gothic architecture a mysterious connexion with the Roman Catholic religion, and indeed seem to think that all magnificent Churches have a tendency to support that system. Such an opinion does not deserve consideration, but it is certainly true, that some buildings are calculated to excite emotions favourable to religious impressions, to produce a seGENT. MAG. February, 1829

rious frame of mind, and one in which we are more inclined to acknowledge the present existence of superior power, and more ready to submit to the influence of this conviction....Mankind in general, at least in France and England, are dull and sluggish in the affairs of religion; they find it difficult to detach their thoughts sufficiently from worldly affairs. It is desirable, therefore, that every help should be given them; for, in this, as in every other good object, human means are to be used, when they are put within our reach. A place of worship should, therefore, iu the first place, possess in its style and decoration a decidedly different appearance from a common dwelling house: this tends to break the associations with the every day employments of life, and gradually to form new associations with the objects of religion, which become of considerable importance in the government of the attention. A merchant, on entering his counting-house, is more strongly led to think of ships and commerce, than on coming into a dining-room. Secondly, a place of worship should possess a decided character of power and sublimity: if from the conditions of our nature, any style of building is calculated to induce serious feelings, that style is fitted for a Church. In the third place, if any style be already connected in our imagination with the duties of religion, it is fitter for the

purpose than one which having equally the two former qualifications, is deficient in the latter. These considerations point out the Gothic architecture, as preferable to every other, for the Churches of our own country." i. 11.

For our parts, we are satisfied that any attempt at reconciling the Greek and Gothic, however ingenious it may be, is impossible, because they are as irreconcileable in se,

as trees and animals. We now come to the

Differences between French and English Cathedrals. Mr. Woods, speaking of those of Amiens, Notre Dame at Paris, and Rheims, says, that they are more pyramidal in their formsthat the space between the western towers is proportionally smaller than with us; that the door-ways are much larger; that a rose or marigold window is placed over the central opening, and that there is one or more ranges of niches, with statues, nearly hiding the triangular gable-end of the nave; that sometimes one, or even two ranges of

1829.]

internal area of the French building must be at least twice as much as that of the English." i. 57.

In the Gothic, but not in any other style, garret windows are susceptible of much ornament. i. 84.

"At the ancient Church of Aynai, the choir is little more than a semicircular recess, with a semi-dome. This arrangement alone is a proof of very high antiquity. The ancient apsis was nothing more than a large niche, and the complete developement of the cross, in the plans of our Churches, is not prior to the eleventh century.” i. 132. At the ancient Church of Kilpeck, in Herefordshire, the choir is only a semicircular recess.

Cavern-like Gothic. This is a new term for a style which seems nearly peculiar to the South of France. It is principally characterized by the continued vaulting of the roof, generally pointed, but without groins, and by the absence of windows in the sides of the nave, or if any, they were very small. There is no proper transept, but sometimes there are approaches to one; altogether it has very much the appearance of a cavern. i. 163.

Mr. Woods finds this cavern style, which he says is of very early date, at St. Remi, and many early Churches adjacent. He then gives us the following biographical sketches of

Norman Architecture.

"The Church at Valence is a very remarkable example, which must rather be classed with what is called Norman architecture, than with the edifices above described. Yet it must be confessed, that if it resemble the ancient buildings of our own country in so many particulars as to be comprehended in the same term, it yet differs in others so much as to present an appearance by no means exactly similar. The ornaments, in particular, are all Roman; the only attempt at novelty in the earlier buildings of the middle ages, in the South of France, consisting in placing some of them topsy turvy. The shape is a Latin cross, of which the foot is remarkably long, and the head short. The vaulting of the nave is waggon-headed, that of the side-ailes is groined; all the vaults and arches are semicircular. The capitals are all nearly alike; and are only a step farther from the Corinthian, than those of the inner archway of the Church of Notre Dame de Dom. It is amusing to follow the steps of this degradation of the Roman architecture from one buikling to another; and here, though very much altered, there is still much more of the original form, than we find in England, or in the north of France. The piers con

139

sist of four half columns of very slender proportions, united to a square pillar; and these half columus rise in one height, without any intermediate bands, from the small' plinth on which they stand, to the underside of the vaulting. The arches of the side ailes rise nearly to the springing of the vault of the nave. The intersection of the nave and transept is surmounted with a dome, and the chevet finishes in a nichehead or semi-dome; it is earlier than any thing I know in the eleventh century, but the existence of a transept makes me unwilling to suppose its erection prior to the year 1000. The lower part of the tower is perhaps older; the upper is certainly more recent than the body of the Church; yet it is still a sort of Norman, but with some Gothic ornaments, which do not seem to be additions. As the Norman, or something very like it, appears to have been the architecture of Charlemagne, it is possible that the Cathedral at Valence is of the eighth century; but I find, that I have freed myself from all those shackles about dates, which I had imbibed in England, and strengthened at Paris; and now ramble through five or six centuries, with very little light to guide me.

"The Church at Vienne, which I have already described, is the last which retains any trace of this cavern-like style, and that rather in some of the accessories, than in any of the principal parts. There we meet with something of Norman details, and something of a degraded Roman. The Norman may perhaps itself be called a degraded Roman, but the degradation has not always taken place exactly in the same manner. It is curious enough, that in the latter imitations of Roman, they should frequently have reversed the ornaments, putting the eggs and darts, for instance, the wrong side uppermost, while at the expiration of the Gothic in the sixteenth century, we may sometimes find the trefoil ornament reversed in the same manner." i. 167.

Our great towers or spires were not usual in the continental Gothic. i. 190. Western towers were not generally adopted by the Italian architects. 206.

1.

"Norman style, and Gothic, in simultaneous use. The Church of St. Gothard, at Milan, though built in the 14th century, exhibits more of what we call Norman than of the Gothic; and perhaps the Italians never entirely abandoned that mode of building for any consistent style, till the restoration of the Roman architecture in the fifteenth century, under Brunelleschi." P.

211.

Rood-lofts, supposed origin of:

"In all the Churches of Milan, in whatever style, the arches are retained in

140

REVIEW.

Bowles's both directions by iron bars. One would think it a point of taste with the Milanese, if that were possible, and indeed the Milan guide does speak of it as one of the valuable inventions of modern times. A large tiebeam, generally gilt, is also seen to the arch, which opens into the choir; and upon the tie-beam a crucifix, and over that a canopy of crimson silk or velvet; nothing can be worse in point of taste, but it is curious, as exhibiting the probable origin of the rood-lofts of our own Cathedrals.' 211, 212.

i.

The ranges of columns which divide our Churches into ailes, is a fashion taken from the ancient basilicas, and the early Churches copied from them.

i. 303.

"Gothic, Roman, and Italian styles. The Gothic artists aspired to a form more acutely triangular than those of the Italian architects. Each disposition has its beauties; the Gothic arrangement conveys the idea of power by the appearance of height; the ancient Roman, by that of extent. The modern Italians have attempted the union of the two. The obtuse triangle gives more the impression of strength and durability, and has also the advantage of producing a building, of which a much greater proportion can be applied to internal use and effect." i. 355.

"Saxon and Norman styles, why of such long continuance. When it was rare to build any thing of consequence, the desire of distinction did not require the frequent alteration of design, which takes place when more is executed; and architecture seems to have changed its type but little from the fourth or fifth, to the beginning of the eleventh century." i. 403.

Here we shall leave this work for the present. There are many particularities, omitted by us, which are intimately connected with details, either too long for us, or fitted for study only, in union with other matters.

(To be continued.)

Bowles's Hermes Britannicus.

(Concluded from page 46.) THAT there were many Tumuli Mercuriales in countries inhabited by the Celts, is beyond doubt, for Livy attests it. The following curious coincidences are mentioned by Mr. Bowles:

"Norden, the topographer of Westminster, in the reign of Elizabeth, says, Tootehill Streete, lying on the west part of this cytie, taketh name of a hill near it, which is called Toote-hill, in the great

feyld near the street.' So the hill was existing in Norden's time; and in Rocque's map, 1746, a hill is shewn in Tothill-fields, just at a bend in that very ancient causeway, the Horseferry-road.' P. 81.

It is certain that there was a Mercury 'Evodios, or Vialis, because he presided over the safety of roads; and this accounts for the situation of the Tumulus by the Horseferry-road.

Mr. Bowles says, that he happened "to pass by, on his road, a lofty conical mound, more sublime, but exactly of the shape of Silbury, with the simulacrum remaining on it. I instantly stopped the carriage, and inquired, what is the name of that singular hill with the vast stone on it?' Cleve Tout' (still called Teut), answered my fellow traveller.” P. 81.

་

It is plain from Livy, that Mercury 'Evodios was called among the Celts Mercury Teutates, and both these Tumuli were on the sides of roads. Cæsar proves the application; for he says of the Britons, that they made Mercury "viarum atque itinerum ducem." Hence the case concerning Toot-hills is very satisfactorily made out.

In p. 78, Mr. Bowles gives us an engraving of a Tyrian coin, on which are represented the oak tree, the sacred fire, the two stone pillars of Hercules, the spiral shell, and the Greek legend

AMBPOCIE ПETРE. We have here to observe, that the coin (we think) refers to Cadiz or Gades*; that the stones are two, apparently, because a figure of Mercury in Maffei carries the club of Hercules, and Mercury and Hercules appear together, twice at least, perhaps oftener, in Boissard (vol. ii. pars. iv. pl. 80, &c.) This circumstance explains the Greek confusion of Hercules and Mercury, noticed by Sir William Drummond, and accounts, to the best of our recollection, for the two pillars. As to the monkish Ambrosius (whence Ambresbury, or Amesbury), we have to observe, that Ambreley, or Amberley, is a common name for old earth-works all over the kingdom, whence derived we know not; but as the legend above quoted refers (as we think) to Cadiz, the deduction from a man named Ambrosius falls to the ground. The words

It is published by Vaillant as a Roman Colonial coin, of Tyre. The two pillars of Hercules, and Tyrian origin of Cadiz, occasion our doubts.

. 1929.] 'AMBРOCIE ПETPE are Greek, and mean no other than "immortal stones." We think, therefore, that this coin furnishes little or no illustration of Druidical remains.

REVIEW. Bowles's

The talent of Mr. Bowles is well known, and we are surprised at the power with which (to use a homely figure), like a steel, he strikes archæological flints, and extracts fire, though in some instances, we think that the fire is more in himself the steel, than in the stone. We allude to the etymological matters, a sort of literary wine, which may make the strongest head intoxicated, and produce tottering steps and doubtful vision. For deducing Salisbury from Sul, we think that he is historically supported, and there is an apparent, perhaps much actual reality in his hypotheses concerning Old Sarum and the vicinity. The circumstantial evidence, the Earthworks, is in his favour.

As to Stonehenge and Abury, our own opinions are, that they are orreries or planispheres. How Mercury came to be connected with the Sun, we do not know; but of the fact we are certain. Montfaucon (1. 83, ed. Humphreys) says, that Cicero, in the first epistle to Atticus, speaking of an Hermathena (or figure of Mercury and Minerva), says, 'your Hermathena pleases me very much, and is placed so well, that your Gymnasium seems to be dedicated to the Sun." This the learned father says that he cannot explain. In a Cornelian, among the Stosch collection (now belonging to the King of Prussia), Mercury is seated with a ram on one side, and a scorpion on the other. Macrobius says (Satur nal. L. i. c. 21, and c. 17, 19), that the Scorpion represents the virtue of the Sun and the same author adds, that Mercury was also regarded as the God of the Sun himself. From hence he is presumed to have had the Scorpion for an attribute. Strabo's and Manilius's account, that Mercury was the inventor of Astronomy, is perhaps a better reason. For this cause, connection with the Sun, it might be, that the Druids, as Cæsar says, "Mercurium maximè colunt."

As to the difference between Abury and Stonehenge, or one being the work of the Celts, the other of the Belgæ, &c. we account them only amusing speculations. Both were orreries. At Abury the stones answer to the exact

division of the year into months and days, and of the antiquity of that remain there is no dispute. But Stonehenge is supposed to be of different eras; the original circle belonging to the Celtic tribes, and the grand circle of trilithous to the Belgæ. (Sir R. C. Hoare's Ancient Wilts, ii. 118.) Sincere and merited as is our respect for the Baronet, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Warner, &c. we have to observe that trilithons occur at Mycenæ, professedly a work of the Cyclopean Celts, long before the invasion of the Belgæ, and also at Telmessus. That Diodorus's "round temple of the Sun in Britain" is Stonehenge, all persons (says Mr. Bowles) agree; and Diodorus derived his account from Hecatæus, who lived nearly 500 years before the birth of Christ, a period, according to our recollection, anterior to the Belgic conquest. It is further to be remembered that representation of the heavenly bodies by columns, is called in Pausasanias, par distinction, the "ancient worship.' He says, (Lacon.) that he had seen in Laconia, seven columns, monuments of the ancient worship, which the inhabitants told him were emblems of the seven planets*. It is certain too that the stars were the firstobjects of worship among the Egyptians. (See Diodor. Sicul. I. i. Euseb. Præp. Evang. 1. 3.) And the above passage of Pausanias, and another in the Cratylus of Plato, are adduced in support of the allegation, that the Pelasgi, or first Greeks, in adopting the Egyptian worship, which the Phenicians communicated to them with many alterations, preserved the manifest traces (viz. the columns before mentioned) of this astronomical mythology.

It is in these passages that we find support for ascribing Drudical stone circles to the "ancient worship," the astronomical mythology. It is clear from Pausanias, that the planets were represented by upright stones, and that such symbols appertained to the “ ancient worship" par distinction. The light, therefore, in which we view stone circles, is, that some are more simple, and others more complex, orreries or planispheres. We are also of opinion that Abury and Carnac hav

The Celtic religion did not permit the representation of deities by human forms. Encycl. Antiq. from Borlase.