Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 8.djvu/559

NOTICES OF AliCIIAEuLO(;lCAI, I'llJLlCATKtNS. J::'.) into styles is impossible, it is very reasonable that so marked a feature an tracery sbould be selected as the criterion of tstyle. Wo doulit, liowever. whether it will be found convenient in practice to adopt any arbitrarily chosen criterion ; the chief use of those divisiuns is to enable an observer to convey to others in a succinct form of words a correct idea of the character of those buildings which he may examine ; and any system is faulty which groups together buildings dissimilar in many and important points, and really alike only in the one point which has been assumed as the criterion of style. Tried by this test, we think Mr. Sliiir|te'8 CJeome- trical period may be found open to olijoction ; on turning to the list of principal buildings of the Geometrical period, it will bo found that it includes the chapter-house of Salisbury and the lady-chapel of Lincoln, the chapter- house of Wells and the nave of York. Certainly, any one who had formed his idea of the style from the two former buildings, and therefore e.xpected to find similar edifices in the two latter, would be nmch deceived. In the former there is a marked individuality and distinctness of parts ; in the latter a strong tendency to their fusion. This is shown in tho piers, where a true compound-pier is substituted for the Early-English cluster of shafts, in the arrangement of the triforium, which, in the case of Lincoln, is an independent member of the building, and in that of York is scarcely more than a prolongation of the clerestory-window, and even in the tracery itself, where a number of small divisions is substituted for the great well-marked circles which are so conspicuous in the chapter-house of Salisbury. The same tendency is shown in the mouldings. In tho orna- mentation, natural foliage in the latter takes the place of the conventional foliage of the former. It cannot be reasonable or practically useftd to place under one head buildings constructed on such very ditfcrcnt principles. Mr. Sharpe has himself shown that he was aware of the incongruity of the buildings he proposed to group together ; since in his description of the style, it will be seen that he repeatedly admits a distinction between the early and the late examples ; as when he says — " The piers have occasionally, in the earlier examples, detached sliafts, but they more usually consist of a solid mass of engaged shafts, ire." " The triforium in the earlier examples commonly contains a pair of double arches," " in the later examples it becomes greatly reduced in size and prominence, and is made entirely subordinate to the clerestory, ic. Thus, in reality, dividing " his period " into two parts. We are inclined to believe that in practice it will be found, that tho three usually received divisions of pointed architecture, with the addition of tho term. Early, Middle, or Late, to each style, as may be required, will satisfy all the exigencies of the observer, and rarely fail to convoy to the reader a tolerably exact idea of the character of the building treated of. Mr. Sharpe's nomenclature seems for the most part better than those which have been hitherto proposed, but it will probably be found difficult to supersede by any other that of Rickman, the emphiyment of which baa now become so general. It must, however, be admitted, that some of Rickman's terms are occasionally awkward in use ; as, for instance, when there is occasion to speak of a late Early English, or a plain Decorated building. Rectilinear seems to be an improvement on Perpendicular. The least satisfactory of Mr. Sharpe's terms is, perhaps, '* Lancet," as being founded more on an accidental peculiarity than on anything essential to the style. VOL. viii. ^ **