18 



Of these three celebrated structures, that of Florence is, in construc- 

 tion, incomparably the boldest; that of St. Peter's the richest and 

 grandest in material ; and St. Paul's, though inferior in both respects to 

 its competitors, is in point of form so superior, as to rank, as a source of 

 pleasure to the mind, far above either. 



That of Florence is of simple but excellent brick, in the form of a 

 double vault, with one chain of timber bond near its base, and it stands 

 without fracture or injury as first built. St. Peter's is of massive 

 stone, elaborately wrought, but so far from well balanced as to be frac- 

 tured in all directions, and held together by iron inserted from time 

 to time in a variety of shapes, all urgently needed for its conservation. 

 St. Paul's is a mere lead roof over a cone of brick work, admirably 

 suited for dumbility, but not strictly a cupola save in appearance; yet 

 who can look on it, as it rears its head above the smoke of London, and 

 not confess that it is unequalled as a study of beautiful and harmonious 

 form. 



As regards construction, a point of importance in my opinion is to 

 convey, as far as possible, the impression of complete stability from the 

 mere forces of gi'avitation ; and I have found that disturbance of 

 pleasureable contemplation is often occasioned by the appearance of 

 parts acting as ties rather than supports, and this applies specially to 

 iron structures, and tends in my opinion seriously to unfit them for 

 conveying the impression of satisfactory architecture ; though when used 

 on the principle of gravitating force, as in the Southwark bridge, and 

 that proposed by Mr. Stephenson for the Menai Straits, but set aside by 

 the Admiralty authorities, I see no reason why fine results should not 

 be obtained from it. 



I would generally observe, that composition and structure are good in 

 proportion as they mutually, aid each other, and that architecture is 

 ' most perfect where no concealment of construction is needed to heighten 

 the effect of the composition or details. 



My remarks are perforce very much generalized, and in touching 

 upon ornament I must confine myself to narrow limits. 



I would say that all ornament is bad which in any way interferes with 

 a composition, which on its part, as to general form, should be indepen- 

 dent also of oniament ; and further, that ornament, which does not aid 

 in carrying out the general character aimed at in the composition, is 

 superfluous and better away. To how much ornament this will apply, 

 especially in a day of stucco and paint, I need hardly say ; but if 

 solidity and dignity of character, rather than elaboration and richness, 

 were aimed at, the cost expended on many modern buildings would be 

 better bestowed, while fully engrossed. 



