This essay examines how three prominent architects of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin, and Thomas Jefferson—interpreted architectural history to inform their designs. Drawing on Neoclassicism, Gothic Revival, and Roman Classicism respectively, each architect's work reflected both personal ideology and broader nationalist sentiment. The paper argues that architectural style is inseparable from its historical moment and that these three figures exemplify how the past can be consciously invoked to give buildings cultural, political, and spiritual meaning. It also considers the influence of industrialization, religion, and emerging national identities on architectural philosophy during this period.
The paper demonstrates effective use of comparative analysis across three historical figures to support a single unifying argument. Rather than treating each architect in isolation, the author draws explicit connections and contrasts — for example, noting that Jefferson, unlike Schinkel and Pugin, turned to Rome rather than Greece — which keeps the essay analytically cohesive throughout.
The essay opens with a theoretical framing drawn from Watkin and Rykwert, establishing that architectural style is historically and nationally conditioned. It then proceeds through three sequential case studies — Schinkel, Pugin, and Jefferson — each building on the last. The concluding paragraph ties Jefferson's legacy to American nationalism, bringing the argument full circle to the opening thesis about style, history, and place.
According to David Watkin, "The time period in which an architectural work of art is created has everything to do with the way it looks. In other words, the style of an architectural work is a function of its historical period."1 Thus, works of architecture, much like sculptures and paintings, are arranged into specific stylistic classes based on their appearances and the times or periods when they were constructed. As a fundamental principle of architectural history, buildings and other structures created at about the same time and in the same basic geographical location generally share common stylistic traits — for example, those constructed during the Romantic Period in England generally exhibit traits linked to the Gothic style, while structures from France during the Baroque Period reflect its Rococo character. Therefore, architects must consider the historical period in which they live when designing a building and then decide whether to adhere to modern architectural principles or those from the past.
In many instances, architects have their own ideas related to designing a building or structure, yet at the same time they must consider their personal viewpoints on history as it relates to style and architectural genres. As Joseph Rykwert points out, whether hundreds of years ago or in the modern age, architects "are heavily influenced by architectural notions from long ago which helps them to visualize what the past was like and then contemplate the present and the future"2 in relation to how a building or other structure will be seen by those today and those in the distant future. In addition, architects almost always strive to reflect their own nationalism when designing a building or structure, as seen in iconic works such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the Taj Mahal at Agra in India, and the Houses of Parliament in London, England.
In the mind of German architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel (1781–1841), considered the most important architect of the Neoclassicism style and a staunch proponent of Greek Revivalism,3 the historical past of ancient Greece played a major role in determining how Western society came about. From the viewpoint of an architect, ancient Greece manifested "a noble simplicity and quiet grandeur."4 Schinkel also uncompromisingly designated Greek art and culture as "the most perfect from the hands of man and the only architectural model to be followed,"5 particularly in Prussia, his native land.
As an architect, Schinkel also felt that the Gothic style — so evident in his Friedrichswerder Church — represented the summit of achievement for unified Christendom in Europe. It symbolized the synthesis of religion, philosophy, and art, and made possible the first firm formation of the various European states that brought about modern history. As to nationalism, Schinkel "accounts for the origins of Gothic as the fusion of universal Christianity and native Germanic genius;"6 thus, the Gothic style "is not only specifically Christian, it is also specifically German." In essence, the art of the remote past was now appreciated as a product of racial and national genius, not only in Germany but also in England, France, and the emerging United States.
Jefferson's architectural visions of ancient Rome had much to do with the rise of American nationalism following his death in 1826, as buildings such as the Capitol in Washington, D.C. came to symbolize Americanism and the great movement towards a true democratic society. Taken together, the careers of Schinkel, Pugin, and Jefferson illustrate how architects of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries drew consciously upon the historical past — whether Greek, Gothic, or Roman — to give their work cultural, spiritual, and political meaning, and to express the national identities of the societies they served.
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.