I THE ART OF ARCHITECTURE 19

it formal, cold, symmetrical; while with Sansovino and Sammichele it became sumptuous and bombastic.

As the Renaissance ripened to its decay, architecture assumed more and more the characteristics which distinguished that of Rome during the decadence. In both there is the same lack of simplicity and sincerity, the same profusion of debased and meaningless ornament, and there is an increasing disposition to conceal and falsify the construction by surface decoration.

The final part of this second, or modern architectural cycle lies still in the future. It is not unreasonable to believe that the movement towards mysticism, of which modern theosophy is a phase and the spiritualization of science an episode, will flower out into an architecture which will be in some sort a reincarnation of and a return to the Gothic spirit, employing new materials, new methods, and developing new forms to show forth ancient verities.

In studying these salient periods in the history of European architecture, it is possible to trace a gradual growth or unfolding, as of a plant. It is a fact fairly well established that the Greeks derived their architecture and ornament from Egypt. The Romans in turn borrowed from the Greeks, while a Gothic cathedral is a lineal descendant from a Roman basilica.

A horizontal rectangular frame containing two architectural drawings with accompanying structural diagrams. On the left, labeled 2 below the frame, is an Egyptian obelisk and a pylon gateway with a single vertical line to its right representing the vertical principle. On the right, labeled 3 below the frame, is a colonnade of thick columns with a post-and-lintel diagram to its right (two vertical lines supporting a horizontal one).

The Egyptians, in their constructions, did little more than to place enormous stones on end, and pile one huge block upon another. They used many columns placed close together. The spaces which they spanned were inconsiderable. The upright, or supporting member may be said to have