UTILITY IN ARCHITECTURE. 207 



of expenditure was rigorously scrutinized and, if not essential, 

 cast to one side as a luxury that was unnecessary and could not 

 be afforded. It followed, therefore, that a Gothic building had 

 no superfluous parts, no erections intended solely for effect, noth- 

 ing that was not absolutely essential. There was no unnecessary 

 multiplication of detail ; there was no attempt at a refined balance 

 of parts or at symmetry. 



Symmetrical building is the greatest bugbear that besets the 

 modern architect, and has done more to throw him into disrepute 

 than any other invention of the craft. The making of two parts 

 of a building the same, whether their use was identical or not, is 

 a very recent invention, and, though practiced by the Romans to 

 a limited extent, was almost unknown prior to the fourteenth 

 century. Every style has permitted more or less irregularity, 

 according as the plan required it, and it was not. until the Renais- 

 sance — a movement that is responsible for more architectural sins 

 than is generally supposed — that the astonishing idea was pre- 

 sented to the world that all the corresponding parts of a building 

 must be alike. The Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, and 

 the architects of mediaeval Europe, were all equally free and un- 

 symmetrical in their designs and their methods. Even the Greeks, 

 who produced more symmetrical buildings than any other people 

 of antiquity, varied their designs to suit circumstances. It is 

 needless to multiply examples, and it is sufficient to point out 

 that this freedom from restraint, this ability to vary the design, 

 is one of the chief glories of Gothic architecture, and helps make 

 it applicable to the varied requirements of modern life. 



Yet this very freedom militates against the use of Gothic, and 

 is one of the reasons why it is not as satisfactory for modern re- 

 quirements as it ought to be. The capability for constant varia- 

 tion permits the architect to compose designs of not a little beauty 

 and almost infinite variety, which so fascinate him that in his 

 search for a pleasing facade he forgets that the external ap- 

 pearance of his building may not conform to the best plan or the 

 greatest convenience. The new Law Courts in London furnish a 

 remarkable illustration of this. These buildings were designed 

 by one of the leaders of the Gothic movement — Sir George Gilbert 

 Scott — a man who was thoroughly imbued with the Gothic spirit, 

 and who devoted his life to the propagation of Gothic forms. Yet 

 he so far overlooked the prime element of Gothic architecture — 

 utility — that the completed structures have been found totally un- 

 suited for the purposes for which they were intended. It can not 

 be wondered at that, when those to whom we look for guidance 

 fail, there should be so many smaller failures by those not so well 

 equipped, and who can not, therefore, be expected to have the same 

 knowledge. There can be no surprise that there has been a revul- 



