1859.] on Modern Gothic Architecture. 41 



for the interval between two trains, and look for yourselves, you will be 

 in a better condition to judge how far Mr. Ituskin and the modem 

 taste are right in pronouncing ornamentation to be the principal part 

 of architecture, than by reading a dozen books or listening to anything 

 more that I could say about it. Of that we had a curious proof when 

 the church was opened last October. A friend of mine, who is, or was, 

 a firm believer in Mr. Huskin and the essentiality of ornamentation to 

 architectural effect, and an advocate of the height which is character- 

 istic of foreign Gothic, against the old English characteristic of length, 

 and had for tliese reasons pronounced the success of this church impos- 

 sible from the drawings of it, nevertheless entirely gave in on seeing 

 it, and admitted that it was in some respects superior to the much 

 grander church not far off; and at that time, it may be wdrth while 

 to add, that even the very small quantity of ornamentation that there is, 

 only £57 worth of carving, and four marble shafts in the pulpit, 

 was not done. So much for Mr. Ruskin*s eloquent demonstration of the 

 ornamentation theory, and his solemn and emphatic deduction from it : 

 ^' Therefore, observe, no man can be an architect who is not either a 

 sculptor or a painter." The moment it is tested by a building which 

 has some real architectural character of its own to depend on, and 

 openly defies that theory, instead of attempting as usual a sneaking 

 compromise with it, the theory " bursts" like the Trolls in the Norse 

 legends when the sunlight falls upon them. 



I do not know whether it is owing to the latent or avowed belief 

 in this theory that decoration should be aimed at first and principally, 

 before instead of after all the other conditions of grand building 

 are satisfied, or to pure and simple ignorance and incapacity for obser- 

 vation, that there are hardly any modern buildings which are not 

 deficient in two primary elements of all grand building in any style 

 whatever : I mean massiveness, and depth of shadow, which is the visible 

 evidence of massiveness, besides having a beauty of its own. So little 

 indeed do the Gothic builders of the 19th century (and I mean not 

 merely architects, but many other persons as well) seem to know or be- 

 lieve that it has anything to do with Gothic effect, that we constantly hear 

 and see tliat architecture exalted for its lightiiess over the more clumsy 

 and unscientific heaviness of the large stone styles of the Egyptians, 

 Greeks, and Romans. In this there is no doubt a kind of truth, though 

 the classical architecture gentlemen in Parliament seem to know about 

 as much of one side of the truth as the other, and actually imagine that 

 Gothic is the dark and heavy stj^le, and the classical style light in both 

 meanings of the word. But though the area of the supports in St. Paul's 

 or St. Peter's is nearly twice as great in proportion to their size as in 

 most of the Gothic minsters, or in other words, the walls and pillars are 

 very much heavier, yet it does not follow that if the walls and buttresses 

 and pillars of York or Westminster were thinner still, the buildings 

 would be grander, or anything like so grand. In this, as in many other 

 things, we seem incapable of getting hold of an idea without riding it 

 to death. Thus Rickman remarked that the general cliardcteristic of 



