The Present Requirements Of Architecture In Order To A Successful Competition With Antiquity.*

from every channel ; and if architecture for its OAVU sake is to be promoted , —if a general taste is to be fully cultivated , and the attainments in this age rival the past , whilst the responsibilities rest Avith the profession , —the practical study of the art , it would seem , should be open to all who are capable of it ; and ,

in a subordinate form , non-professional help again become tributary . Upon revieAvmg the circumstances that favoured architecture in times gone by , it must be owned that the difficulties of competing with antiquity are great . The advantages grasped by the art were more than

peculiar—human faculty was then in a manner sold to it ; in the dark ages we see genius arbitrarily extinguished save in this one phase ; and the whole light of the intellectual firmament at that time may be regarded as absorbed from others to be concentrated on this subject . We can point to a hundred years .

in which about a hundred abbey and cathedral churches ¦ of first-class character were erected in this country , when it possessed but a tithe of the present population and means . Now , the modest demand for only one such cathedral to recommence with may be too much to be realised ; and , if so , puny in comparison

-is the revival of Gothic architecture . Without going to Mediaeval extremes , to impart the necessary feeling is no small matter ; for not the despotic potentate and feudal lords , nor a paramount hierarchy , but a whole people have to be moved to do themselves credit . Yet , notwithstanding the present age haA'e the ability

demanded , with far greater Avealth , greater facilities for traA'elling , and various better helps for acquiring intelligence and proficiency , we ought not to succumb to the past . And if taste received only the utmost rational fostering and encouragement , it is not presumptuous to say that , instead of being behind , we might hope to distance our forefathers in the race of architectural development .

Who Built Our Cathedrals ?

WHO BUILT OUR CATHEDRALS ?

In reference to the foregoing paper , by Mr . Vincent Wing , a correspondent of the Builder ( which originally published it ) writes as folloAvs : — The writer of a paper printed in the Builder , p . $ 69 , makes the statement , that Freemasonry in its Mediaeval system differed from the form it has existed

in since its revival at the beginning of the seventeenth ¦ century . It is very desirable to know Avhere the writer of that passage has found any statement dating previously to 1000 , and showing what that system really was : if he has no better authority than the usual dictionary articlesone error Avould be the

, assumption that any one has any knowledge of Avhat was Mediaeval Freemasonry in England ( and it must be noticed that the whole passage to Avhich reference is here made treats solely of England , —not of Scotland nor of Ireland , and not of France nor of Germany ) . It would also be very xiseful to knoAv where that Avriter found

any evidence that Freemasonry revived at the beginning of the seventeenth centurv in a different form . If he refer to the usual dictionary articles , or to the absurd histories that have been manufactured since 1725 , he will find that Ashmole ' s date ( 1646 ) is paraded as a proof that the

Mediseval system was then still in existence unchanged ; so that , unless he has alighted upon some document , a second error would be the statement , that Mediaeval Freemasonry was revived about 1600 -1625 ; and a third error Avould be the inference that it ever was revived . The fourth fault seems to be

the statement , that we know that from a very . early date ( by the way , what period is indicated by that expression ? Is it the time at Avhich the King of Bohemia built his " seven castles ? " ) there ' was an organised fraternity of Masons—constituting an Order partly religious ami partly professional . No notice of anything of the nature indicated appears in any of

the histories of Orders , civil , military , or religious , which have reached my hands ; and perhaps , by order he does not mean Order , but merely Society . Of course , it is only proper to give him credit for knowing that the Masons of London were ( or are said to have been ) incorporated about 1410 , by the name and

title of Freemasons , and for being aware that statutes were directed , 1360-1425 , against alliances and covines of Masons and carpenters . But the London fraternity or guild will not serve his purpose in any explanation of what is above italicised ; nor would such knowledge show the existence at a very earldate of

y an organised fraternity ( partly religious ) of Masons , who , from travelling and observation , as well as practice , gained intelligence . These last words are so decided , that it would be well to know , where any proof has been found that the body of Mediaeval Freemasons , or rather Masonsin England and in Francetravelled

, , at all . My own researches tend to a totally different conclusion , which would count the " travelling" as a fifth error . The sixth fault seems to be the assertion that we know that these Masons , by well-devised plans , communicated their intelligence to their whole body . If by " plans" the Avriter means "designs , "

he is understandable ; but , if he means " system of communication , " it Avould be useful to know what these plans Avere , or where any ground except imagination exists for them . The seventh error seems to be conveyed in the assertion that the organisation was fostered by the clergy . No proof of that has yet

occurred to me . The eighth fault is the assertion that the rearing of religious structures was allowed to be monopolised by the Freemasons as an organised body . No safe evidence on that point has yet been adduced in its favour by the most fervently zealous members of the Craft . But , if they cannot find any proof

that it is a fact that ecclesiastics were associated to the mediaeval body ; or , that priests possessing a taste for it were not only associated in Freemasonry , but readily initiated , they Avill thank me for thus asking for the long-desired evidence which would show that those words do not convey a ninth error . Probabl

y you will think that nine such faults justify merciless criticism ; but please to observe that if there is little excuse for any one of them , there Avould certainly be less for the inferences Avith which the lecturer has followed them . As no documentary evidence that the organisation was very complete , and under a central

control , has eA er been published , it is open to me to urge that no sound archaeologist could hope to establish so much on the faith of curious correspondence in the details of work , or from a universal similarity of arrangement . No doubt exists in my mind upon the anxiety of the Builder to forward any mode of ascertaining who built our cathedrals : so I take this