Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 9.djvu/90

62

The term "mystique" appears to me perfectly sound and philosophical, though I question whether it is a convenient basis for a system of nomenclature. But my business is at present with the line which he draws between the first and second "metamorphose." In a treatise comprehending the "Transformation Romane" and the "Progression Mystique," the extremely fine distinctions between the two might very well be noticed, and the assigning of buildings to one class or the other would form an occasion of acute criticism and antiquarian research. But to make the line one of total exclusion, appears somewhat arbitrary, and gives the work an air of incompleteness, at least to the stranger who meets with several phases of the transition altogether new to him. For instance, towers, which in England would be pronounced pure Romanesque, are frequently found supported by pointed arches of an advanced character. Such towers are excluded from the "Metamorphose Romane," as belonging to the "Progression Mystique;" properly so, if their date is to be the criterion; for they can scarcely be earlier than the thirteenth century, or the very end of the twelfth; yet, in point of style, many of them might, if viewed by themselves, be pronounced earlier by nearly a century.