In my last lecture it was my endeavour to illustrate the _mechanical_ and _structural_ portion of the process by which the Romanesque, or round-arched Gothic, became changed into the _Pointed_ style--a change which I showed to have resulted primarily from causes purely constructional, and arising from the mere necessities of the case, though subsequently carried on into parts, in which the change in the form of arch, though not _statically_ necessary, was demanded from reasons of _geometrical_ and æsthetic harmony. I further showed that the change was not, by any means, that abrupt revolution which it is often described as having been; that a large proportion of the distinctive characteristics of Gothic architecture are common to its round-arched and pointed-arched varieties; that these two forms of architecture are hardly to be called two styles, but rather the grand divisions of one style--the latter being the natural and logical result of the progression ever going on in the former, during every moment of its prevalence, and in every country where it prevailed. The portion of the subject, however, on which I then treated, was only the mechanical framework of the style--its mere ossature, to use M. Viollet le Duc’s expression, or--as a celebrated palæontologist, who did me the honour of being present, said--the “_backbone_” of the subject. My object this evening is to overlay this skeleton with the muscles and sinew, and with the external expressions of its inner life; to show that those dry bones lived; or, in other words, to show the changes in the decorative features of the architecture, and in the sculptural art which accompanied it. I have further to trace out the transition as exhibited in the structures of different countries--and especially of France, England, and Germany;[10] and in a general manner to inquire both into their peculiar characteristics and into the order of their chronological precedence. The tendency I have so often mentioned to refine and to elevate the character of the Romanesque architecture is common to all the countries where it prevailed. In all we find the severe simplicity of its earlier productions gradually and steadily relaxing throughout the whole period of its history; the rudeness of its early decorations disappearing in favour of a more artistic treatment; its ponderous massiveness becoming lightened; its low proportions changed for more lofty ones; and the general asperity of its character becoming softened down; so that in its later stages it seems often to possess nearly every feature of the succeeding style, excepting the pointed arch and the elevation and lightness which followed its introduction, though it also possessed features which its successor speedily discarded. I especially refer to those systems of ornamentation--most of them of Oriental origin--by which the Romanesque buildings may usually, irrespective of their arches, be distinguished from those of the succeeding periods.