ARCHITECTURE - Karatunov.net

268 BYZANTINE AND ROMANESQUE [CH. xxixand from the exigenciesof that form of construction aroseClassicventiondonedallthe later schools of western Europe.Byzantine and Romanesqueart was in fact a revulsionfr m convention to the unaffected expression of natural*aw an(* met^ods of construction. It does not appeal toall minds alike.To those who value consistent obedienceto authority and precedent, to strict canons of orthodoxy,correctness, and propriety, according tocertain acceptedformulas ;in other words in the strict classic puristboth Byzantine and Romanesque art will appear debasedByzantineand lawless, a violation of all rule, and a rebellion againstwholesome tradition. To others not so wedded toauthority it will appearthe natural and reasonable outcomeof an altered state of society,to which the oldRoman architecture would be inappropriate had it notbeen impossible.Neither Romanesque nor Byzantinei5>manberegarded as perfected styles;theyst^es'oftransitionarchitecture canare rather to bev *ewed as stylesin transition,Romanesque, especiallyj n Northern Europe, never shook off the roughness ofthe barbarous time out of which itcame, and of whichthe thorns and briers clung to it to the last Byzantineindeed, in itssplendid earlier stagesalmost attainedperfection of a kind but its;development was arrested,and it had begun to fall into decay before it was overwhelmedby the Moslem conquests. But Romanesque,struggling upwards through its imperfections, had astronger life and was more fruitful of consequences ;and after an Herculean infancyitdeveloped at last intothat Gothic architecture which was the glory of themiddle ages.