S. Peter's, by the piers which rest on, and crush, a monster. We have before noticed that Norman architecture, true to its love of facts, delighted in the representation of instruments of martyrdom, or the deeds of Faith, as the victory of S. George. The Final Doom was also a favourite subject; so was the descent of CHRIST into hell. In fact, its whole character, whether in stringcourses, tympana, capitals, or chancel arches, was graphicalness, and that obtained sometimes at the expense of grace, sometimes almost at that of decorum, but probably well adapted to the particular developement which the minds of the people had then reached. One point we must remark, to the eternal honour of the Anglo-Norman, and indeed also of the Saxon Church Deadly as was the hatred existing between the two peoples, for at least a hundred and fifty years after the Conquest, it has left no symbolical trace, either in the churches of the vanquishers, or of the vanquished. Much as the one had suffered, and much as the other despised the conquered nation, this feeling vanished in the House of GOD.

In advancing to Early-English, we still find strong traces of the historicalism of ornaments, both in some of the mouldings, as in the toothed, and in the capitals, though the latter begin now to assume a more allegorical form. Indeed, the observation seems worth making, that this style is the only one which appears to have dealt much in allegory, we mean in that sense which we have already attached to the word. That is, it employs fictitious representations, to set forth real truths; as in Wells Cathedral, the fall of the barren tree forms a beautiful corbel. We do however find some traces of this in Norman work, as the fable of the Crow and the Fox may occasionally be discovered in it. The works of the Creation were often set forth, rather with reference to their beauty than from Such as the birds making their nests

any other reasons.

in the thick foliage, flowers, and fruit. Yet, on the whole, facts such as those which principally occupied the attention of Norman architects, began rather to find expression among the details, than to usurp any important part in church arrangement. We are in possession of too little wood work of this date,-and in that many references of this kind were probably to be found,—to be able to speak with so much certainty as we can in the later styles: but that this was the tendency of the progress of architecture, it requires but little knowledge to discover. Impressed, but evidently, now, not only essentially but intentionally, on every building, was the doctrine of the Ever Blessed TRINITY: for triplets were so common at the East end as to form the rule of Early-English design. Fonts, instead of bearing a representation of the Fall of Man, and thereby implying our need of regeneration, began to be octagonal, thereby setting forth the doctrine itself, a strong confirmation of our previous observation respecting facts and doctrines. The shape of piers is also to be noticed. For there appears to have been almost a rule, either that the octagonal and circular shape should alternate; or that one Aisle should present the one kind, the other the other. This we can hardly, in our present state of knowledge, profess to explain. Durandus's observations about windows, their splay and shafts are very curious: and again, he evidently recognises in the tiebeams, the knitting together of the elect in one Communion and Fellowship: a strong argument, this, that we are justified in regarding arrangements, which arise from mechanical necessity, as nevertheless, truly and really symbolical. In the bases of Piers we now often find flowers, which indeed, sometimes, as in Rochester Cathedral, occur in transition work; principally the fleur de lys, which we may interpret to signify that humility is the foundation of all Christian graces.

On the whole, however, we conclude that in this style, while churches taken as a whole became more symbolical, their details, as details, became less so.

In proceeding to the next developement of Catholick art, we are almost afraid of expressing a belief, that Decorated, in its early dawn, gave promise of a brighter day than it ever reached. It had not shewn its wonderful resources and capabilities in windows and flying buttresses, before the boldness of its capitals and bases began to decline. We can imagine that, had it so been ordered, Christian architecture might, about the year 1300, have taken a different direction, and attained to a glory, inconceivable to us, perhaps attainable only when the whole Catholick Church shall be at unity. As it is, we cannot but consider, that about that period, or a few years later, it took a wrong turn, and being hurried in a short space through the hectick of a rare flush of beauty, declined thenceforward slowly but surely. Now, if we ask, why was this? it will lead us to look at Church history as connected with the developement of Church architecture. Contemporary with the change from Saxon to Norman, (for we are none of those who hold that the former extended till Oct. 14, 1065, and the latter began the next day,) was finally the victory of the Anglican Church over Paganism in the conversion and civilization of the Danes. Contemporary with the appearance of Early-English, was the great victory of the Church over Erastianism, by the Martyrdom of S. Thomas of Canterbury, and the Abrogation of the Constitutions of Clarendon. But, hardly had Early-English finished its course of splendour, when while traces of rare glory were developing daily, the Statute of Mortmain began to tell upon the Church: and though the impulse already given yet continued for some time to act, the end was near. No magnificent Cathedral was built after

the full effects,—not so much of that act, as of the Erastianism which contrived and allowed it,-were felt. The Nave of Winchester can hardly be called a solitary exception; because, in truth, it may be doubted whether the pious exertions of William of Wykeham were not, so far as concerns the actual beauty of his Cathedral, misplaced. Thenceforward, the State interfered more and more with the Church; and not allowed to carry out Her own designs, it is no wonder if the latter quickly began to forget Her own symbolical language. After, for the first few years of the fourteenth century, using it with precision and elegance before unattainable, she thenceforward began to disuse it. We need not give examples of Decorated Symbolism, because all that was new in it lay in its windows; and these we have already discussed at considerable length. And having sufficiently explained why there should be a decline, we have only now to examine why that decline should have been so different in England, France, and Italy. In England, from the time that Edward IV. directed the execution of Archbishop Scrope, when the State interfered, it was with a strong arm, cramping and confining, obliging the Church to confine herself to ritual observances, and forbidding Her to expatiate in the grand objects for which She was ordained. Now could there be a more fitting expression of this than the Perpendicular style? Does not its stiffness, its failure in harmony, its want of power and adaptation, its continual introduction of heraldry, its monotony, its breaking up by hard continued lines, its shallowness, its meretriciousness, its display,―set forth what we know to have been the character of the contemporary Church? Above all, do not the reintroduction of horizontality, the Tudor Arch, the depressed Pier, speak of Her want of Spirituality? Every

thing teaches us that there was no want of power in Her architects; considered merely as specimens of art, King's College, and Henry the Seventh's Chapels, are matchless. And here and there we may trace some tokens of vastness and holiness of conception worthy of a better age; such as the Suffolk roofs, which, as it has been well said, never attained their full developement. It must be borne in mind, that Perpendicular* was the first style, which in its full developement was used first for a secular building. Far be it from us, however, to depreciate the excessive magnificence it assumes in shrines and chapels: indeed, this is one of the features which Decorated has not, and the absence of which in that style renders it possible to believe that a still more magnificent may be in store for us. Perpendicular introduced no new element of symbolism.

But if this were the state of the Anglican Church, the Gallican, though not better off, was acted on in a very different manner. The State gradually interfered with it, embraced it with its dangerous friendship, made its observances meaningless, while sustaining their splendour; secularized its Abbeys, by appropriating them to political ends; made statesmen of its Bishops, gave it outside show, while eating out its heart. Does not Flamboyant express this? A vast collection of elegant forms, meaninglessly strung together: richness of ornament, actually weakening construction: vagaries of tracery, as if the hand possessed of Church Art, were suddenly deprived of Church feelings: nothing plain, simple, intelligible, holy: parts neglected, parts ostentatious: the West front of Abbeville to a choir that would disgrace a hamlet.

* We deeply regret that the Oxford Architectural Society should ever have allowed itself to put on paper the opinions expressed by one of its members, that Perpendicular windows are those best suited to the spirit of Christian Architecture.

M