ARCHITECTURE. 18] 
limited intercourse among different people of old, we could speak very dis- 
tinctively, e. g. of an Egyptian and a Grecian architecture, without danger 
of meeting the same or even similar characteristics in both. This is some 
what true also of the middle ages. Nations were much more separated then 
than now, and peculiar styles were formed with very distinguishable charac- 
teristics. Religion and increasing trade, however, united the European 
nations more closely. The fact that in the middle ages the monks were 
mostly the architects of their own churches, led to the introduction of the 
different styles from one part of Europe to another. Hence we see buildings 
of the same style in very different places. Yet the original type of the style 
was generally closely followed, and if we occasionally find a mixture of 
styles in churches and other large buildings, it originates as we have 
already observed from the long duration of their construction extending 
through the periods when important changes in taste or manner influenced 
the several architects, who in succession had charge of the progressing 
edifices. 
In the architectural history of modern times, however, the relations of 
things are different. After the beneficial influence of refinement in archi- 
tecture had lasted for some time after the Renaissance, attention was 
exclusively directed to the old monuments of ancient architecture, and the 
imitation of these was attempted. But while such men as Michael Angelo 
and Raphael and their contemporaries wisely recommended the study of the 
noblest ancient monuments as a means of improvement of the public taste, 
persons of an ill-advised zeal devoted themselves blindly to the study of the 
relics of that period of antiquity when architecture was already declining, 
and when excessive ornaments rather than noble forms were resorted to for 
effect, such as broken gables over doors and windows, and similar absurdi- 
ties which had no architectonic truth or necessity whatever. Hence arose 
the new, and from that the corrupt [talian style. But as Italy was the tra- 
ditional land of art, these defects were all carefully copied everywhere, and 
the corrupt style spread, receiving occasional additions, especially in France, 
which tended to make it if possible still more abominable. From this 
period date those architectural monstrosities which are found in all parts of 
Europe, and enjoy the little flattering epithet of the guewe style. It was 
reserved for the most recent times to supplant this awkward taste. Greater 
knowledge of Grecian and other remains, and zealous study of them, led to 
the rejection of all fantastic and superfluous ornaments; graceless forms 
disappeared, and a closer investigation of technicalities and manners of con- 
struction did away with much of the former clumsiness. But with this 
disappeared the nationality of style, and all forms were adopted promiscu- 
ously, modified according to the special purposes of edifices. Hence many 
modern cities contain specimens of the styles of architecture of almost all 
people and all times. In considering modern buildings, we can therefore 
no longer follow our old divisions of styles, for no style is consistently 
employed in any place. We have preferred to classify them according to 
their different purposes, and describe the edifices of the same class in ethno- 
graphical order. The reader will thus be able to form an idea of the 
181 
