ied and perfectly executed architecture to which those
schools owe their principal claims to our respect, and which became the
model of most of the important works subsequently produced by civilized
nations. I have called it the Roman Renaissance, because it is founded,
both in its principles of superimposition, and in the style of its
ornament, upon the architecture of classic Rome at its best period. The
revival of Latin literature both led to its adoption, and directed its
form; and the most important example of it which exists is the modern
Roman basilica of St. Peter's. It had, at its Renaissance or new birth,
no resemblance either to Greek, Gothic, or Byzantine forms, except in
retaining the use of the round arch, vault, and dome; in the treatment
of all details, it was exclusively Latin; the last links of connexion
with mediaeval tradition having been broken by its builders in their
enthusiasm for classical art, and the forms of true Greek or Athenian
architecture being still unknown to them. The study of these noble Greek
forms has induced various modifications of the Renaissance in our own
times; but the conditions which are found most applicable to the uses of
modern life are still Roman, and the entire style may most fitly be
expressed by the term "Roman Renaissance."

Sec. III. It is this style, in its purity and fullest form,--represented
by such buildings as the Casa Grimani at Venice (built by San Micheli),
the Town Hall at Vicenza (by Palladio), St. Peter's at Rome (by Michael
Angelo), St. Paul's and Whitehall in London (by Wren and Inigo
Jones),--which is the true antagonist of the Gothic school. The
intermediate, or corrupt conditions of it, though multiplied over
Europe, are no longer admired by architects, or made the subjects of
their study; but the finished work of this central school is still, in
most cases, the model set before the student of the nineteenth century,
as opposed to those Gothic, Romanesque, or Byzantine forms which have
long been considered barbarous, and are so still by most of the leading
men of the day. That they are, on the contrary, most noble and
beautiful, and that the antagonistic Renaissance is, in the main,
unworthy and unadmirable, whatever perfection of a certain kind it may
possess, it was my principal purpose to show, when I first undertook the
labor of this work. It has been attempted already to put before the
reader the various elements which unite in the Nature of G