and liquors for sale.

[155] _Antony and Cleopatra_, 2. 5. 29.

[156] Matthew xxi, 12 and _John_ ii, 16.

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE

VOLUME II, CHAPTER 6

I believe, then, that the characteristic or moral elements of Gothic
are the following, placed in the order of their importance:

1. Savageness.
2. Changefulness.
3. Naturalism.
4. Grotesqueness.
5. Rigidity.
6. Redundance.

These characters are here expressed as belonging to the building; as
belonging to the builder, they would be expressed thus:--1. Savageness,
or Rudeness. 2. Love of Change. 3. Love of Nature. 4. Disturbed
Imagination. 5. Obstinacy. 6. Generosity. And I repeat, that the
withdrawal of any one, or any two, will not at once destroy the Gothic
character of a building, but the removal of a majority of them will. I
shall proceed to examine them in their order.

1. SAVAGENESS. I am not sure when the word "Gothic" was first
generically applied to the architecture of the North; but I presume
that, whatever the date of its original usage, it was intended to imply
reproach, and express the barbaric character of the nations among whom
that architecture arose. It never implied that they were literally of
Gothic lineage, far less that their architecture had been originally
invented by the Goths themselves; but it did imply that they and their
buildings together exhibited a degree of sternness and rudeness, which,
in contradistinction to the character of Southern and Eastern nations,
appeared like a perpetual reflection of the contrast between the Goth
and the Roman in their first encounter. And when that fallen Roman, in
the utmost impotence of his luxury, and insolence of his guilt, became
the model for the imitation of civilized Europe, at the close of the
so-called Dark Ages, the word Gothic became a term of unmitigated
contempt, not unmixed with aversion. From that contempt, by the
exertion of the antiquaries and architects of this century, Gothic
architecture has been sufficiently vindicated; and perhaps some among
us, in our admiration of the magnificent science of its structure, and
sacredness of its expression, might desire that the term of ancient
reproach should be withdrawn, and some other, of more apparent
honourableness, adopted in its place. There is no chance, as there is
no need, of such a substitution. As far as the epithet was used
scornfully, it was used falsely; but there is no reproach in the