Similar to the preceding is the opinion entertained by Sir dames Hall, who, with equal felicity of imagination, refers us to interlaced wicker-work as the undoubted proto type of the Pointed style in all its parts—its groined roofs, clustered pillars, and traceried windows; and thus Gothic churches become representations of the primitive churches in this island. Sir James has taken upon himself no incon siderable amount of labour in his endeavour to prove his theory the correct one, and has profusely illustrated his book to show how precise is the imitation ; but his illustrations, as well as his argument, go to prove the converse of his propo sition, not that Gothic architecture took its origin from interlaced twigs and branches, but only that wicker-work may be made to assume the forms frequent in that style. The same argument respecting the similarity being most conspicuous in the later examples, exists also in this instance.
Mr. Murphy, well known by his publications on the archi tecture of Spain, refers us to the pyramids of Egypt as the grand type of the style; and in his splendid work on the church of Batalha, after having stated the tendency of every ornament to the general pyramidal form, says—" It appears evident from this instance, that the pyramidal form actually exists throughout the several component parts, and the general disposition of the edifice approaches as near to it at least as the ordonnance of an historical painting which is said to be pyramidally grouped. I I ence we may comprehend the reason why the arch was made pointed, as no other forms could have been introduced with equal propriety in a pyramidal figure, to answer the different purposes of uniformity, fitness, and strength ; it is in vain, therefore, that we seek its origin in the branches of trees, or in the intersection of Saxon or Grecian circles, or in the perspective of arches, or in any other accidental or fortuitous circumstances. The idea of the pointed arch seems clearly to have been suggested by the pyramid, and its origin must consequently not be attributed to accident but to ordination." That there may he some truth in this theory as regards the pyramidal grouping of these 'buildings we are not prepared to deny ; but neither arc we prepared to assert that the principles of Pointed architecture were therefore derived from the pyramids of Egypt. A contemporary has given the following somewhat amusing critique or illustration of the arguments brought forward by Mr. Murphy. "The pyramids of the Egyptians are tombs; the (lead are buried in churches, and on their towers pyramidal forms are placed ; consequently' the pyra mids of the towers indicate that there are graves in the churches; and as the pyramidal form constitutes the essence of' the Pointed-arch style, and the pyramids of the towers are imitations of the Egyptian pyramids, the pointed arch is de rived from the latter." Some authors are anxious to discover the prototype in a framed timber building, but in what the resemblance exists it is somewhat difficult to determine. The late it r. Barry attri butes the Gothic style to the corruption of Greek and Roman art; Mr.Dallaway, to the desire of novelty and the caprice of the Italians. Lord Orfbrd perceives the prototype in shrines
for reliques, and observes, "it was a most natural transition for piety to render a whole church as it were one shrine :" he adds, " the Gothic style seems to bespeak an amplification of the minute, not a diminution of the great." Of the first two, Mr. Barry and Mr. Dallaway, we are inclined to think that both are, to a certain extent, correct, that Pointed architecture was a gradual development of the principle of the arch, and that taking it as a whole it does owe its origin to the Romanesque or Debased Roman, in a similar manner as the Roman was, in a degree, an imitation of the Grecian orders. That it owes its existence also—at least partially— to a desire for novelty, we are not in a position to contradict ; but that it originated in Italy, we consider a matter of very great improbability. Dr. Whittaker, with whom Mr. W hes., ell somewhat agrees, is of opinion that pointed arches were known to, and practised by, the Romans during the empire, and originated in the intersection of cross-vaulting, examples of which are to be seen in the palace of Diocletian, at Spalatro. This suggestion is very worthy of consideration, and is, at least, a method by which the pointed arch was constructed, and that, too, accidentally, as it were, and in regular course. Vaulting, we know, was employed by the Romans, and, as a matter of necessity, cross-vaulting suc ceeded ; and in some eases, by such a system, the. pointed arch was described in the process. It is not unlikely that this circumstance should have been noted, and turned to practical advantage.
In connection with this should be considered an hypothesis, which has been held by Dr. Milner, Mr. Bentham, and seve ral others, and which has met with a considerable share of public flavour. Their supposition is that the pointed arch has been suggested by the intersection of semicircular arches. That interlaced arches were largely employed in Norman architecture as a means of decoration, there can be no ques tion, and that, too. previous to the introduction of the pointed arch. That pointed arches were thus formed by the inter section is equally certain ; nor is it at all improbable that the idea may have suggested itself thereby. Still this solu tion of the question is not unattended with difficulty or objection. in the first place, Dr. Milner is evidently incor rect in attributing its invention to llenry of Winchester, for it is kncm n that the abbey of Clugny, in France, where he himself had been monk, was constructed with pointed arches; and therefore it is more reasonable to suppose that he had copied the idea from that building, rather than have invented it from his observation of the form in the intersection of semicircular arches. But laying aside this objection, which applies only to a peculiar and individual instance, and con sidering the theory simply on its own merits, we cannot consider it perfectly satisfactory ; for it is somewhat impro bable that the leading feature of the style should have had its origin in an accidental and unessential matter of detail ; that a grand principle of construction should have been eliminated from a mere method of decoration.