This was the only form，however，in which free thought was possible，and therefore found full expression only in those books called edifices.Under that form it might have looked on at its own burning at the hands of the common hangman had it been so imprudent as to venture into manu：the thought embodied in the church door would have assisted at the death agony of the thought expressed in the book.Therefore，having but this one outlet，it rushed towards it from all parts；and hence the countless mass of Cathedrals spread over all Europe，a number so prodigious that it seems incredible，even after verifying it with one's own eyes.All the material，all the intellectual forces of society，converged to that one point—architecture.In this way，under the pretext of building churches to the glory of God，the art developed to magnificent proportions.
In those days，he who was born a poet became an architect.All the genius scattered among the masses and crushed down on every side under feudalism，as under a testudo of brazen bucklers，finding no outlet but in architecture，escaped by way of that art，and its epics found voice in cathedrals.All other arts obeyed and put themselves at the service of the one.They were the artisans of the great work；the architect summed up in his own person，sculpture，which carved his f de；painting，which dyed his windows in glowing colours；music，which set his bells in motion and breathed in his organ pipes.Even poor Poetry—properly so called，who still persisted in eking out a meagre existence in manu—was obliged，if she was to be recognised at all，to enroll herself in the service of the edifice，either as hymn or prosody；the small part played，after all，by the tragedies o chylus in the sacerdotal festivals of Greece，and the Book of Genesis in the Temple of Solomon.
Thus，till Gutenberg's time，architecture is the chief，the universal form of writing；in this stone book，begun by the East，continued by Ancient Greece and Rome，the Middle Ages have written the last page.For the rest，this phenomenon of an architecture belonging to the people succeeding an architecture belonging to a caste，which we have observed in the Middle Ages，occurs in precisely analogous stages in human intelligence at other great epochs of history.Thus—to sum up here in a few lines a law which would call for volumes to do it justice—in the Far East，the cradle of primitive history，after Hindu architecture comes the P ician，that fruitful mother of Arabian architecture；in antiquity，Egyptian architecture—of which the Etruscan style and the Cyclopean monuments are but a variety—is succeeded by the Greek，of which the Roman is merely a prolongation burdened with the Carthaginian dome；in modern times，after Romanesque architecture comes the Gothic.And if we separate each of these three divisions，we shall find that the three elder sisters—Hindu，Egyptian，and Roman architecture—stand for the same idea：namely，theocracy，caste，unity，dogma，God；and that the three younger sisters—P ician，Greek，Gothic—whatever the diversity of expression inherent to their nature，have also the same significance：liberty，the people，humanity.
Call him Brahmin，Magi，or Pope，according as you speak of Hindu，Egyptian，or Roman buildings，it is always the priest，and nothing but the priest.Very different are the architectures of the people；they are more opulent and less saintly.In the P ician you see the merchant，in the Greek the republican，in the Gothic the burgess.
The general characteristics of all theocratic architectures are immutability，horror of progress，strict adherence to traditional lines，the consecration of primitive types，the adaptation of every aspect of man and nature to the incomprehensible whims of symbolism.Dark and mysterious book，which only the initiated can decipher！Furthermore，every form，every deformity even，in them has a meaning which renders it inviolable.Never ask of Hindu，Egyptian，or Roman architecture to change its designs or perfect its sculpture.To it，improvement in any shape or form is an impiety.Here the rigidity of dogma seems spread over the stone like a second coating of petrifaction.
On the other hand，the main characteristics of the popular architectures are diversity，progress，originality，richness of design，perpetual change.They are already sufficiently detached from religion to take thought for their beauty，to tend it，to alter and improve without ceasing their garniture of statues and arabesques.They go with their times.They have something human in them which they constantly infuse into the divine symbols in which they continue to express themselves.Here you get edifices accessible to every spirit，every intelligence，every imagination；symbolic still，but as easily understood as the signs of Nature.Between this style of architecture and the theocratic there is the same difference as between the sacred and the vulgar tongue，between hieroglyphics and art，between Solomon and Phidias.
