Bearing these difficulties in mind, it will probably be found convenient to divide the whole history of Architecture into four great divisions or parts.
The first, which may be called “Ancient or Heathen Art,” to comprehend all those styles which prevailed in the old world from the dawn of history in Egypt till the disruption of the Roman Empire by the removal of the capital from Rome to Constantinople in the 4th century.
The second to be called either “Mediæval,” or more properly “Christian Art.” This again subdivides itself into three easily-understood divisions. 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 possible to follow after its study. It is difficult, for instance, to understand the churches in Ravenna or St. Mark’s in Venice, or the churches at Périgueux, and in the Charente, until the churches of Sta. Sophia and of St. Sergius, Constantinople, and of St. Demetrius, Thessalonica, 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 distract the reader or cause him to lose sight of the leading characteristics of the style. There is some difficulty in knowing where to draw 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 buildings constructed prior to the introduction of the pointed arch into transverse and diagonal ribbed arch vaulting, it was this latter which led to the great development of the Gothic style in France, England, and elsewhere in the 12th and 13th centuries.
The third great division of the subject I would suggest might conveniently be denominated “Pagan.”[[21]] 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 elsewhere designated as “Rude Stone Monuments.”[[22]] No very consecutive 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 publication, it has been determined 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 western style bearing the same name.
The styles of the New world, having as yet no acknowledged connection with those of the Old, may be for the present treated of anywhere.
The fourth and 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 generally in Europe to the present day, and are now making the tour of the world. Within the limits of the present century it is true that the copying of the classical styles to some extent were superseded by a more servile imitation of those of mediæval art. The forms consequently 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 chronological 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? Whether the description of the Temple at Jerusalem should stop short with the rebuilding 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 mode 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 predilection 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 danger. Though strict impartiality has been aimed 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.
OUTLINE OF EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.