Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 5.djvu/121

Rh Gothic style then is naturally divided into three periods, early, middle, and late. If these three divisions were alike and simultaneous in all countries, one general nomenclature would suffice, but Rickman had acuteness enough to see, what his opponents cannot or will not, that this is not the fact, but the opposite of the fact; that in truth each country had a distinct progress of its own, that the Early English style is not the same as the Early French style, or the Early German style of Gothic Architecture. This objection then is purely a proof of the ignorance of the objectors. The next is "The Decorated English style of Gothic Architecture." In this style, which has been called the Perfect Gothic, there is something more like uniformity throughout Europe, though still with considerable peculiarities in each country. Another ground of objection to the name is here taken, "There are as many plain churches in the Decorated style as in any other." Who ever doubted it? Did anyone know this better than Rickman himself? But it happens that the tracery of the windows, which is the characteristic feature of this style, is essentially a feature of decoration, a ready mark by which to distinguish it, and an easy guide to the student; the term is singularly happy and appropriate, it is never forgotten, and causes no real confusion or practical difficulty. We may join in the laugh at a "plain Decorated church," as we may at many other anomalies of language, without therefore considering that the language is a bad one, and should be altered. The next is "The Perpendicular English style of Gothic Architecture;" this term is peculiarly his own, and it is impossible to find one which more clearly and readily distinguishes the third and last style of English Gothic from those that preceded it, and from the cotemporaneous styles of the continent of Europe. It is peculiar to England, and the Perpendicular lines of its tracery at once and immediately distinguish it from any other, even to the most inexperienced eye. Mr. Rickman did not belong to the modern school, who consider a knowledge of the Greek language an indispensable requisite for any one attempting to study Architecture in England; he had an abhorrence of hard names when merely adopted for the sake of puzzling people, and of giving an appearance of learning and research to very simple and easy matters; his object was to instruct, not to mystify.

We have scarcely allowed ourselves time to describe the beautiful book before us, or to do more than recommend it, perhaps that is all which is necessary, for once seen it will be felt to be indispensable. It is sufficient to say that the text of Rickman's work is given entire, with such additions as increased facilities of obtaining information seemed to have rendered necessary, that this is done cautiously and judiciously, without any parade of knowing more than the author. In one or two instances we could have wished that the editor had spoken out more boldly, and not appeared afraid to say that Rickman was sometimes wrong. For instance, when Rickman calls the Eleanor crosses Early English, and the gateway of Thornton abbey Decorated, it is clear that he was in error according to his own definitions of the styles; the editor is evidently aware of this, but abstains from saying so openly, shewing a superabundance of caution hardly