Some authors have asserted that the style was invented by the Goths ; whether the term Gothic formed the principal ground for such an assertion, it is not easy to determine; hut it is very certain that no reason can be assigned for it which would have much greater weight than even this ; for as regards this people, we have no reason to suppose that they possessed any style of architecture of their own, but rather the reverse ; and although their king, Theodorie, did erect some buildings, they were constructed in the same style as the structures already existing in the country. It is true that Gibbon, in his Fall of the Roman Empire, states that the representation of Theodoric's palace at Verona, still extant on a coin, supplies the oldest and most authentic model of Gothic architecture ; but in the work to which he refers for an engraving of this coin, we find none, indeed, of a coin, but one of a seal ; the building represented on which is in a totally dissimilar style. One conclusive argument, however, against this theory, consists' in the fact, that no building of this style has ever been known to exist which can claim so great an antiquity as that desired to be estab lished by this statement ; and, moreover, that the Gothic style was not introduced into Italy till a comparatively late period, when the Goths had been long since forgotten, and, indeed, never obtained a permanent footing in that country.
Other writers, with greater show of reason, have derived our knowledge of this style from the Saracens, supposing it to have been brought over by the Crusaders ; nor is such an opinion taken up without good grounds, as it meets some grand difficulties which others are subject to, and yet is in many points unsatisfactory. As regards its this theory is fortunate ; for it certainly was about the time of the Crusades that the style became prevalent ; while yet, on the other hand, there is good evidence to suppose that one or two buildings of the kind existed in Europe before any of the Crusades had taken place. Another circumstance in its favour is, that it is the only supposition which will account satisfactorily for the simultaneous adoption of the style throughout Europe ; a circumstance which, in all the other ideas which 'nave been broached, forms an insurmountable objection to their acceptance. Whether the pointed arch was common in Saracenic buildings of the time, has been a matter of endless discussion ; nor does it seem to have ever been satisfactorily proved or disproved, owing to a want of accurate information, and uncertainty as to the date of exist ing examples. There seems reason to believe that the pointed arch did exist, but was not so prevalent as some would have us suppose, or at least not in that form in which we find it in Europe; but whether pointed arches were to be found or not, is not a matter of such consequence as some would make it ; nor does it of necessity prove anything ; for we know that this form is to be found occasionally in ancient buildings of other countries, from which no one has attempted to deduce its introduction into Europe. But even supposing
the styles to assimilate as regards the pointed arch, they agree in no other principle ; in the buildings of the Saracens, we find neither cross-vaulted roofs nor arcades forming nave and aisles, nor clustered columns, nor crocketed pinnacles, nor towers, nor spires : their mosques are mostly square on plan, and are conspicuous chiefly for their bulbous domes, the nearest approach to the Gothic spire being found in the minarets. The idea of Gothic window-tracery is said to have been derived from the perforated fret-work of Arabian archi tecture; but if so, it must be recollected that such tracery is only to be found in the later examples when the style was developed ; and, moreover, that we have a more satis factory mode of accounting for its introduction. The above theory is supported by Warburton,Warton,Whittington, Lord Aberdeen, and Sir Christopher \ V ren ; the last author, however, seems to prefer the supposition of the introduction of the arch into Europe by the Moors of Spain, but for this opinion there does not appear to be anything, like the amount of evidence which may be produced in favour of the Other writers prefer to give the honour to the Visi-Goths of Spain, rather than to their Arabian invaders, but apparently with little better reason.
We have now taken a cursory glance at most of the leading theories respecting the introduction of the pointed style into Europe; but, as we have seen, not one of them is free from objections of considerable importance. One main objection, which affects nearly all of them, is this, that instead of the resemblance to the supposed prototype being, as it ought to be, the closest and most exact in the first stages of the style said to be derived from it, the resemblance is there least of all dis cernible. There is another objection, which touches every one of them—they all seem to rest satisfied when they have found, or thought they have found, the origin of the pointed arch, forgetting that this does not comprise the entire question at issue ; their only inquiry appears to have been as to who were the inventors of the pointed arch, and not of pointed architecture. Now, there is a vast difference between the two questions, for the former embraces but a fractional part of the latter : a pointed arch is but a component part, and does not of itself constitute absolute Gothic architecture, although it is one and it very important characteristic of it. At the same time there are other peculiarities little loss important ; such are its principle of verticality ; its lofty towers and spires ; its cross-vaulting ; its light and clustered pillars, with their slender shafts ; its tracery, mullions, &e. ; these are all neces sary to make up a complete whole, and each and all ought to be considered in determining the origin of the style.