Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

the son of Joseph, not by Mary, but by a former wife, and Jude believed in the immaculate conception, he must have been sensible, that, though to all outward appearance he was brother-in-law of Jesus, since his own father was the husband of Jesus's mother, yet in reality he was no relation of Jesus. On the other hand, if Jude, called the brother of Jesus, was the son of Joseph, not by a former wife, but by Mary, as Herder asserts, I do not see, how the preceding objection can be answered. For, if Jesus and Jude had the same mother, Jude might, without the least impropriety, have styled -himself brother of Jesus,' or brother of the Lord:" and this would have been a much more remarkable and distinguishing title, than that of brother of James.' Vol. iv. P. 366.

Respecting the persons to whom this epistle was addressed, as there are no traces to be discovered in it which can assist in determining, nor any thing in the address with which it commences, that applies more to one community of Christians where Greek was spoken, than another, it must still remain undecided. Nor can the time of its being written be with certainty settled. That it is of a later date than the Second Epistle of St. Peter may be safely asserted; but whether it were written between 64 and 66, as Lardner supposes; or between 70 and 75, according to Beausobre and L'Enfant; or in 71 or 72, as Dodwell and Cave contend; or so late as 90, which is Mill's opinion; Michaëlis professes himself unable to settle. However, he states it as probable that it was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and consequently before 70; as, among the instances mentioned of divine vengeance, no allusion occurs to the destruction of that city. To show that the Epistle of St. Jude was written after the Second of St. Peter, the professor thus argues:

This appears from a comparison of the two epistles, which are so similar to each other both in sentiments and in expressions, as no two epistles could well be, unless the author of the one had read the epistle of the other. It is evident therefore, that St. Jude borrowed from St. Peter both expressions and arguments, to which he himself has made some few additions. Lardner indeed, though he admits the similarity of the two epistles, still thinks it a matter of doubt, whether St. Jude had ever seen the Second Epistle of St. Peter. Lardner's reason is, "that if St. Jude had formed a design of writing, and had met with an epistle of one of the Apostles, very suitable to his own thoughts and intentions, he would have for borne to write." To this argument I answer:

1. If the Epistle of St. Jude was inspired by the Holy Ghost, as Lardner admits, the Holy Ghost certainly knew, while he was dictating the Epistle to St. Jude, that an epistle of St. Peter, of a like import, already existed. And if the Holy Ghost, notwithstanding this knowledge, still thought that an epistle of St. Jude was not unnecessary, why shall we suppose that St. Jude himself would have been prevented from writing by the same knowledge?

On the other hand, if the Epistle of St. Jude is not genuine, but is a forgery in his name, there is no improbability in the supposition, that the author derived his materials from an epistle of St. Peter, in the same manner, as the person, who forged the Epistle to the Laodiceans in the name of St. Paul, copied from apostolic writings.

2. The Second Epistle of St. Peter was addressed to the inhabitants of some particular countries: but the address of St. Jude's epistle is general. St. Jude therefore might think it necessary to repeat for general use, what St. Peter had written only to certain communities.

6

3. The Epistle of St. Jude is not a bare copy of the Second Epistle of St. Peter: for in the former, not only several thoughts are more completely unrave led than in the latter, but several additions are made to what St. Peter had said; for instance in ver. 4, 5. 9-16.' Vol. iv. P. 372.

The next section inquires into the canonical authority of this epistle, beginning with a view of the external evidence in its favour, principally derived from the three ancient fathersClement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen; whence, after inferring that the external evidence is more in its favour than against it, he proceeds in the following section to show from its contents, that, though some of the objections may be answered, yet there is less reason to believe it of divine authority than Origen supposed. Referring to the discussion at large for its contents, we can only subjoin the professor's deduction:

I cannot therefore acknowledge that this epistle is canonical. And I have really some doubts whether it be not even a forgery, made in the name of Jude, by some person, who borrowed the thief part of his materials from the Second Epistle of St. Peter, and added some few of his own.' Vol. iv. P. 395.

(To be continued.)

ART. XI.-Plans, and Views in Perspective, with Descriptions, of Buildings erected in England and Scotland: and also an Essay, to elucidate the Grecian, Roman, and Gothic Architecture, accompanied with Designs. By Robert Mitchell, Architect. Large Folio; plain, 31. 35. ; coloured, 41. 4s. Boards. Taylor. 1801.

THIS magnificent work is printed in English and French, and accompanied with numerous plates. The author, we understand, has established a just reputation as a skilful architect; and his book is calculated to give additional reputation to his abilities.

It begins with an account of Selwood Park, between Staines and Windsor; which is followed by Heath-lane Lodge, át Twickenham, the seat of Mr. Swainson, well known for his vegetable syrop. The botanic garden and green-house are excellent. The other villas, of which there are views, &c. are Cottes-Brook in Northamptonshire, Moore Place in Hertfordshire, Preston Hall in the county of Edinburgh. There is also a plate of the Rotunda in Leicester Square, in which the Panorama is exhibited.

These descriptions are succeeded by an essay on the Grecian, Roman, and Gothic architecture, accompanied with plates. We shall extract the remarks on the last order.

The Gothic is a style of architecture truly original. Whoever will attentively examine it, as found in buildings in its purest style, will certainly find that it has not any thing in common with either the Grecian or Roman architecture, in whatever constitutes their principles, or wherein they are distinguished by their forms. In the architecture of the Greeks and Romana, the columns were particularly admired for the happy effect of their proportions; but it will be found that little or no regard has been paid to these in the Gothic column, in which the shaft is almost never diminished; a practice, if applied to the Greek or Roman, would occasion them to appear masses of deformity. The plan of the antique column is always round; but the plan of the Gothic column is of almost every shape, and is frequently found in the form of an oblong lozenge; so that the column, when its plan is of this form, appears to increase, or lessen, as viewed on the longer or shorter diameter. In the most admired Gothic edifices, no regard appears to have been given to the proportion between the length of the shaft of the column and its diameter; there are no rules that can be deduced from the Gothic, as from the practice of the ancients, to fix the proportions of the Gothic column; neither are there determined intercolumniations, or fixed spaces between thre columns, though these are found sometimes in different buildings to approach nearly: yet there are examples of the most extravagant difference; amongst these may be offered, the nave of the cathedral of York, and the aisles of the conventual church of Newark upon Trent, both Gothic buildings, deservedly admired, but which differ widely from one another, both in the proportion of their columns, as well as in the intercolumniations. The capitals of columns in the architecture of Greece give invariable distinctions to the several orders: in the Gothic they are varied at pleasure, without any relation to the diameter and length of the shafts, and are generally so diminutive as not to become essential parts of the columns. The horizontal lines which form the entablature of the Grecian and Roman orders, appear in a manner to interrupt the eye of the spectator, as if intended to arrest it till it has examined the beautiful proportions of the column, and thus in a manner limit an order, or the columns with their entablatures, as a composition distinct and unconnected with the other parts of the building.

In viewing a Gothic building, all the parts are found united,

whilst, in the Grecian or Roman architecture, they are cut asunder by the horizontal lines. The striking effects of a Gothic building are produced by taking in the whole, in all its relations; but, in the Greek and Roman, chiefly by examining the elegance and fine proportions of their parts.

"If we examine with attention the Gothic architecture, it will be discovered how admirably the parts are constructed for the eye to embrace the whole. The column is formed generally of an assem blage of vertical mouldings, or of a bundle of rods, which act as conductors to the eye. There is little or no obstacle from the capitals: the eye then glides along the pointed arch, and, not meeting with any interruption, embraces the upper parts of the building. In its progress the eye is aided by the vertical torus, or one of the rods which form the column: this pierces the capital, and ascends to the roof; and from which springs [spring] the ribs of the vaulting.

The exterior of a Gothic building is equally well constructed to produce the same effects. In the plate 18, the columns, with their pointed arches, which form the portal, are conductors to the eye; the pediment, unlike to what we find it in the Grecian or Roman architecture, has not any horizontal cornice; the eye, from not being interrupted, rises to the point of the pediment, or to the apex of the pinnacle over it. The flanks of a cathedral produce the same effect; the eye is conducted by the buttresses, and ascends to the extremity of the pinnacles. It is in this manner, it will be found, that the numerous vertical lines, as well as the pyramidical forms in a Gothic building, produce the powerful effects, or irresistible impressions, made by the Gothic architecture. If we consider how scrupulous the ancients were in giving correct proportions to their columns, and that it was their unvaried opinion that these could not be dispensed · with, unless by abandoning every thing that was graceful or beautiful in architecture: when we reflect that a style of architecture, as is the case in the Gothic, has since been invented, and established in practice, in which correct forms, or strict proportions, have been disregarded; and, notwithstanding which, effects are produced in this style of architecture, which, in certain cases, make stronger impressions upon the mind than can be effected by the Greek or Roman-it will then be confessed, that, in the whole circle of human knowledge, there is no example of so astonishing a revolution taking place in any art or science*. Every man of unbiassed mind must from this perceive, that, in the extension of science, there is an absurdity to suppose that any thing is arrived at a perfection so as to preclude all attempts to advance it still further.

[ocr errors]

The study of the Gothic would be found a source of pleasure to

The Gothic architecture is a different style, in every point of view, from the Greek or Roman. The interior of a Gothic building will be found to differ, not only in the form of the columns, in the intercolumniations, in having pointed arches in place of an entablature, in the form of the vaulting, in the apertures in front of the galleries, but in the subordinate parts, the forms of the doors, win dows, niches, and also in the decorations: and the exterior, in the buttresses, pinnacles, battlements, form of the roof, and pediments. Towers and spires in the Grecian architecture have been introduced from the Gothic, for these never were in practice with the ancients.'

those who delight in architecture, if investigated with candour, and just conceptions were formed of it.

"The Greek and Roman architecture will ever charm, from their beautiful forms, all persons of real taste; but compositions in these styles, from being the result of positive rules, are easily comprehended, and soon lose the attraction of novelty. Whilst the Gothic edifices are found to possess infinite variety, their compositions require more ingenuity and science to produce them, and are more difficult to be comprehended: from these circumstances it is that wẹ never return to examine a Gothic structure without finding new subjects for contemplation.

From the reign of Henry the Eighth, when the Gothic architec ture was superseded by the introduction of the Grecian, a most violent prejudice has ever since prevailed against the Gothic; it has been subject to every misrepresentation in which architects of great celebrity have taken the lead; but this conduct, if impartially considered, has arisen from an erroneous principle, in condemning the Gothic architecture on account of its not having the forms and proportions found in the Greek or Roman, How unfair is this manner of proceeding, if the Gothic is considered an original style of architecture, which certainly it is, and wholly unconnected with any other*! for surely it must be unreasonable to expect the same proper ties in two things which have not any resemblance to one another. The author, whilst investigating this subject, has endeavoured to remove every prejudice against this species of architecture, desirous that it may have its fair weight in the scale according to its real merits. Should this take place, little doubt can remain, that, with the aid of so much superiority in every science which now prevails, to what men possessed when the Gothic buildings were erected, this style of architecture would arrive at a perfection hitherto unknown. The author declines at present entering further into this subject, as he has been for some time employed in collecting materials for an extensive treatise upon the Gothic architecture, and which may see the light should this publication meet with a favourable reception."

6

P. II.

We have omitted a few of the notes, as we only wished to preserve the author's leading ideas, which appear to us to be just. We do not regard the Gothic as a corruption of any other mode, but as an original species of architecture. To those who are versed in the monuments of the middle. ages, it will probably occur that this order may have been derived from the ancient portable shrines, in which relics of saints. were preserved, some of them as ancient as the ninth and tenth centuries, having the sharp arches, and other rudiments of what is called the Gothic architecture.

The author had in view, in publishing this essay, that, in proving the Gothic to be an original style of architecture, its principles then must be sought for in itself, in place of having recourse to objects foreign to it; and, as such misconceptions are likely to mislead, they must consequently retard the progress that would otherwise take place in this style of architecture.'

« ElőzőTovább »