movement may be sure that they will raise monuments to themselves more enduring than the National one which graces their capital. The student of Scotch architecture will find, in the very outset of his inquiries, that he can draw no conclusions as to dates from the form of the arch, because that feature is not universally changed with the succeeding styles. Thus the semicircular arch, which elsewhere is almost confined to the Norman period, (from 1050 to 1180, or thereabouts,) exists in Scotland abundantly during all styles, whether we take the Norman door of Dunfermline, or the late perpendicular example of the Melrose cloisters. Generally speaking, then, it must be by attention to the detail of mouldings and foliated ornament that the later period of Scotch buildings can be traced, although even this test must be taken with caution, as the writer once met with the dog-tooth ornament-common during the late Norman period-upon a castellated turret built after the year 1600. For the earlier periods—that is, before the wars of the Bruce and Baliol commenced— it may be taken as a rule that English and Scotch architecture were identical; that after the commencement of hostilities, (which desolated both kingdoms, and ended only by the accession of the "Scottish Solomon" to the English crown in 1603,) Scotch architecture, Scotch alliances, nay, the very language, became deeply tinged by foreign imitation, or rather adaptation, for in no instance were mere servile copies produced. From the year 1500 to 1660, or thereabouts, Scotland adopted the sterner features of French and Flemish residences, and so cleverly mingled their peculiarities with the castellated architecture of her own growth, as to produce a Baronial style peculiar to the country. We say, without fear of contradiction, that there is no mistaking a Scotch house of the period named, for that of any other nation. During the same time, the architecture of England, from the travels of her architects, took its mixture of styles from Italian buildings; and the styles of that country, mingled with the ancient domestic architecture of England, produced the combination known as Elizabethan—a style undoubtedly as original to the South, as the other adaptations are to the North. Scotland, most probably from its French affinities, retained the flowing tracery forms of French architecture until the extinction of Gothic during the Reformation. Hence the perpendicular style-known only in England generally, and so wonderfully wrought out in the design of Henry VII.'s Chapel at Westminster, and King's College Chapel at Cambridge-really finds no parallel in Scotland, although the style exists there most decidedly. If Melrose displays the flamboyant curves more immediately common to France than England, it is equally interesting for perpendicular features; and the architect will look with especial admiration upon the decorations of the great east window, whose mullions are unbroken from the base of the building to the arch above. The eastern ends of Linlithgow and Stirling Churches are also undoubted examples of the perpendicular style. Singularly enough, however, none of the specimens of this style in Scotland exhibit its main feature in England; i. e., the four-centred arch, which to all appearance never crossed the Tweed, nor even the Border, though approaching it at Carlisle, where it exists most decidedly. Besides the peculiarities already named, there is one which must be closely watched, to avoid deception. We allude to comparatively recent imitations of older styles. For instance, what designs can be more in the spirit of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries than the examples of Dairsie and Michael Kirk? Yet an inspection of their detail shows that the family likeness is only preserved by "the lang pedigree," for both were built after the year 1620. A fruitful and interesting source of information on Scotch architecture lies in an examination of changes of design and execution, resulting from the geological disposition of materials in the different districts. Where the fine sandstone exists, as in Edinburgh or Glasgow, nothing can exceed the beauty and extreme minuteness of execution resulting from the chisel. In the whinstone districts, again, we see the ingenuity of the workman's hammer displayed, and the bold masses of composition fully atone for the absence of finish. Again, the effect produced in the granite country upon the stubborn material with which the mason had to deal, by means of a tool combining those of both the former workers, (a series of chisels screwed together,) is equally ingenious; and the detail of the Aberdeen buildings must be carefully examined, before the patient merits, showing such results, can be appreciated. As was said in opening this Introduction, subject after subject presses on the writer for notice; but he cannot even entertain them, for the limits assigned to him have now been reached. He therefore draws to a forced, and an unwilling conclusion. It would, perhaps, have been well for the writer's personal position, had his labours for Scotland stopped long since; but he could not peril his own name, or the names of those who were connected with him, by any violation of the pledge under which he and they had originally come. And now, having accomplished to the full extent, both in fact and in spirit, the task jointly undertaken, he quits the path he has so long been traversing, and reluctantly bids the field of his labours farewell. 3 ST MARY'S ROAD, CANONBURY, LONDON, February 29, 1852. |