The two great defects in the _rationale_ of their architecture were--first, that, as the conquerors of the world, the resources at their command were so unlimited that economy of material seems to have been almost dismissed from their consideration, and their principle of statics seems to have been rather that of passive and inert resistance than of equilibrium of forces; and, secondly, that, having adopted the artistic features of Greek architecture, they attempted to unite them with their own totally different system of construction, in a manner which cannot always be said to be consistent with reason. When the nations of modern Europe began to emerge from the chaos of centuries, and to generate for themselves a new civilisation, their aim, as regards architecture, seems rather to have been to recover that of ancient Rome, than to generate a new style for themselves; but their limited resources, and unfamiliarity with what is now denominated “Classic” art, freed them from the tendency to follow their great masters in the two defects which I have mentioned. True, they often built with needless massiveness; but this was not the result of profuseness, but of want of experience; and when they imitated or re-used the details of Roman architecture they applied them with more regard to practical utility then to Classic precedent. At first the Romanesque builders were at a low level both as to constructive and artistic skill; but all their efforts being directed to practical improvement, they, in course of time, succeeded in generating a very consistent round-arched style, in which every feature may be said to have resulted, in a greater or less degree, from practical reasoning on immediate requirements and on their experience of preceding defects. The observations I have to offer on the developments thus reasoned out are intended to apply mainly to those of the countries north of the Alps, but may in many points be found to be of general application.