themselves. Thus we may say that archi- | which has changed in different periods tecture should be understood by all persons of education, meaning that the art of erecting buildings according to fixed rules should be understood as a means of improving the taste, and increasing the pleasures of the student. But it would be equally proper to say of a cathedral or a castle, that it is an elegant piece of architecture. The term is applied to every description of building, though it should be restricted to those which display a symmetry of design and enrichment, according to some pre-determined rules. "Architecture may," says an anonymous writer, "be said to bear the same analogy to building that literature does to language." A plain brick wall covered in the ordinary way with bricks on their edges is not architectural, because it is poor, rude, and unadorned; it produces no pleasing effect, and is such as a totally uninstructed workman would construct, merely to answer the purpose required of it. As man, however, is endowed by nature with a taste for beauty and elegance, mere rugged utility does not delight him; as he becomes civilized, he seeks to embellish whatever he produces, that it may give him positive as well as negative pleasure, by presenting to his sense of vision what his mind may dwell on with complacency, and he is thus disposed to avail himself of the dispositions and decorations, which constitute architecture." In this he only follows nature, for the God of nature has so formed his works that they are as capable of giving pleasure to the senses, as they are of fulfilling the more immediate purpose for which they were formed. The fruits of the earth are pleasant to the taste, and grateful to the sight, as well as useful for food. Man in the performance of his works, frames them with such forms and in such proportions as are suited to his conceptions of elegance and taste. Architecture, as a fine art, has been said to excite the noblest powers of the human mind, and it is the parent and preserver of painting and sculpture, whose very existence may be said to depend on it. Among all classes and communities of men there has probably been, from the dawn of civilization, a desire to decorate their dwellings, and places of public resort. In this way some characteristic style has become prevalent among all nations, according to the advance or decline of public taste and opinion. To one of these styles we now direct the attention of our reader. It is usually called the Gothic architecture on account of an erroneous opinion as to its origin, but may be more appropriately called the English, having been most successfully employed in our own country. The Gothic architecture is generally distinguished from the Grecian, and those derived from it, in the form of its arch, and the want of any constant form, proportion, or decoration in its columns. The Grecian architecture derives all its power to please from the extreme symmetry and harmony of its parts; while in the Gothic these are entirely neglected, and we find grotesque figures of men and animals combined with columns and cornices, having no fixed proportion or decoration. In the Grecian architecture, the running lines, as in entablatures, are horizontal; in the Gothic, the running lines are vertical; in the former, entablatures are necessary where columns are used; in the latter, they are never employed. In the Grecian, arches are not used, and in the Roman are not necessary; while, in the Gothic, they cannot be dispensed with. This singular opposition of character between the two styles, has induced many intelligent writers to condemn the Gothic as barbarous and unfit for use in any character of building. But however singular it may appear that things contrary to each other, and governed by directly opposite principles, should be able to excite equal sentiments of pleasure, it is no less true; and we do not envy the man who can examine with admiration the relics of ancient art, and yet turn with either pretended or real disgust from the cathedrals of York and Salisbury. SAXON AND NORMAN GOTHIC. In describing the varieties of Gothic architecture, it has been customary to commence with that style adopted by our Saxon and Norman ancestors, This is not absolutely necessary, for although it has many characters in common with Gothic architecture, it has many that are dissimilar, and there may be some doubt as to the propriety of classing it with that style. But as it immediately preceded it in regard to time, some notice must be taken of it, before we proceed to speak of the style more immediately under consideration. There are but few specimens of Saxon architecture in this country, and they are so rude and imperfect, that but little notice can be taken of them. The style employed anterior to the conquest, was a barbarous imitation of the Roman, decorated, or more properly debased, by the introduction of singular and unmeaning ornaments. The only specimens of Saxon architecture that are now in existence, are huge square towers, with out windows, battlements, or decorations of any kind. These towers are commonly much larger at the bottom than at the top, and were styled earth-works, being erected for the purposes of defence. There is a great difference of opinion among writers as to the state of architectural knowledge among the Saxons; some deny them any acquaintance with the art, while others give them the credit of erecting many gorgeous, if not elegant structures. Dr. Milner says they copied the ornaments of the Roman Corinthian order, substituting the forms of men and animals, for the richer embellishment of foliage. The Saxon churches, according to another writer, consisted of a rectangular nave, with a portico at the western end; the eastern end was similar in form to the place of the tribune in the Basilica, and the nave was divided | into three parts by two arcades, above which were galleries. The arches were semicircular, and rose immediately from the capitals of the columns. The shafts of these were very massive and generally cylindrical, though columns of a different form seem to have been sometimes used. Here we have a particular, almost minute description of the Saxon churches, the accuracy of which many antiquaries deny; we leave them to dispute the question, and proceed to speak of the Norman style, upon which there can be little difference of opinion. The Norman Gothic is distinguished by its semicircular arches supported by massive columnar piers. The doors and windows are similarly arched, and are decorated with thin columns, which receive the mouldings; when the columns are not introduced, deep mouldings are carried down the jambs of the doors. The zigzag, and the chevron are the most common ornaments; animals, foliage, and flowers are also introduced as enrichments. This style was practised in that period which intervened from the conquest to the reign of Henry II., when the pointed arch made its appearance. Those who believe the style to have been progressive from the time of the Saxons, imagine that the only difference between the architecture of the two periods was in the manner of execution. There are many interesting and wellpreserved specimens of Norman architecture in the country. The vestibule of the Inner Temple church, the chapel of the Tower, and parts of St. Bartholomew in Smithfield, are the best in London. The nave of Rochester cathedral is one of the best remains of the style in the country, but in nearly all the other cathedrals some specimen may be found. Iffley church also affords some exemplifications of the character of the architecture; we have given a view of the doorway, as an illustration, on p. 4. Mr. Rickman mentions two specimens as peculiarly worthy of observation; the vestibule of the chapter-house at Bristol, which is remarkable for its simplicity and beauty, and the staircase leading to the registry of Canterbury cathedral, the enrichments of which are peculiarly fine. In the Norman churches a square tower was usually erected at the western end, which was the principal entrance; but sometimes one was placed on each side of the entrance. These towers were frequently ornamented with tiers of arches occasionally intersecting each other, though commonly separate. The churches of Germany and France, erected during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, have a great similarity of appearance to those of England. Specimens may be seen in the cathedrals of Aix la Chapelle, Spires, Mentz, and Worms. It is, however, exceedingly difficult to determine the precise age of these relics of art, either in our own or in foreign countries, for one portion after another has been removed, so that it is not uncommon to find a Norman door in a structure of comparatively recent date. At the close of the twelfth century, in the reign of Henry 11., the pointed architecture was introduced into England. Writers usually divide this style into three classes, which Dr. Rickman has denominated the early English, the decorated English, and the perpendicular English; other writers have spoken of these varieties in reference to the periods fourteenth century; the third in the close of the same century, in the reign of Richard 11. THE FIRST PERIOD OF GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. The architecture of the first period is distinguished by its pointed arches and long narrow windows without mullions. But when we speak of the architecture of a period, it must not be supposed that all the specimens will have precisely the same characters. The changes which are constantly made in the arts, by the varying circumstances of society, are not violent. The progress of society is always gradual, and even the revolutions, which to the casual observer appeared most fortuitous and unexpected, might have been foretold by a more thoughtful and discriminating mind. The state of the arts is commonly supposed to be a tolerably accurate criterion of the mental condition and civilization of a people. If, then, architecture be so dependent on society, we may expect that in any considerable period, there will be a great difference in style, although the same general characters may be traced in all the specimens. This was the case in the first period of Gothic architecture. Those buildings erected soon after the close of the Norman period, were massive, and the sharp lancetarched windows were formed in rows, with rude columnar piers of the former period between them. Of this we have an example in Romsey church, Hampshire. As the next period advanced, we find the edifices to approach the florid style, by which that second period was distinguished. The lancet windows or arches are carried by clustered columns, with rich capitals, and moulded bases; of this we have an example in the nave of Lincoln cathedral. We have many beautiful specimens of the architecture of the first period in this country; Salisbury cathedral is the finest. This noble edifice, unlike any other, except Bath abbey, was commenced and finished in the same style, and is a perfect model of the early English. Beverly Minster is another fine example, a great part of Westminster abbey, the transepts of York Minster, and the fronts of Ely, and Lincoln cathedrals. The rich and elegant crosses, erected by Edward 1., to the memory of his queen Eleanor, may be considered as specimens | second period. We here give a repreof the transition from the first to the sentation of that erected near North Northampton Cross. ampton, which will afford the reader an idea of the gradual passage from one style to the other. Neither mullions nor tracery are introduced in buildings belonging to the first period. Flying buttresses, and buttresses in diminishing stages, are also characteristic. The parapet or battlement is straight and uninterrupted, and is either plain or ornamented with series of arches or panels with foliations. The turrets are in some cases square, in others octagonal; but the pinnacles which surmount them are almost always of the latter form. Towers in the style of this period were generally made to receive that beautiful characteristic of pointed architecture, the spire. (To be continued.) JULIA BRACE. JULIA Brace is a deaf, dumb, and blind pupil of the American Deaf and Dumb Asylum, at Hartford, Connecticut. The following account of her is from the pen of Mr. Weld, the principal of the Asylum, and is extracted from the last annual report of that institution: On the 11th of June, 1825, Julia Brace was admitted as an inmate in, and so far as her peculiar circumstances would permit, as a pupil of the Asylum. She was born in Hartford, on the 13th of June, 1807; consequently, was eighteen years of age at the time of her admission, and is now (April, 1837) almost thirty. At the age of four years and |