16 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[Jamuabv, 



chords of the former, answered to the cellular tuhes in the roof 

 jiiid floor of the latter, and the frames on each side to the iron 

 plates, forming the sides of the main tube, with their numerous 

 anjjle-iron pieces, which were laid on tlie continuous g-round of 

 the plates to give stiffness to the sides. The frames of the 

 American bridges were also connected at the bottom by cross 

 frames and timber planking ; and at the top, he believed, they 

 were also, in some cases, connected in a similar manner, and 

 covered in l)y a roof, for protection against the weather ; so as, on 

 the whole, to form, as it were, a complete rectangular tube in 

 skeleton. Still, however, the tubular bridge was, in many re- 

 spects, a very different structure; and the design of a bridge, of 

 one vast malleable iron tube, was an idea at once happy and 

 original, and was, he considered, due entirely to Mr. Stephenson. 



Mr. Buchanan having explained, in regard to the tensile strength 

 of malleable iron, stated at 27 tons for the breaking weight, tliat 

 this was from the old experiments of Telford, Brown, and Rennie, 

 Professor Forbes said he understood from Mr. Stephenson tliat 

 he considei'ed this result too high. Mr. Buchanan stated that he 

 was not aware of this, but he knew Mr. Stephenson had taken the 

 safe load of malleable iron of the Tyne bridge at 9 tons, which 

 was ratlier larger than Mr. B. had been used to calculate, so that 

 the final results were very nearly the same. He would, however, 

 endeavour to obtain Mr. Stephenson's results accurately. 



REVIE-WS. 



Rudimentary Architecture : the Orders and their JEsthetic Princi- 

 ples. By W. H. Leeds, Esq. Weale, 1818. 



We do not expect to obtain much credit for impartialitv, in 

 speaking of what comes from the pen of one whose name has, in 

 one or two instances, appeared in our own Journal, as that of a 

 contributor to it, and who is suspected by some to have written in 

 it incog, to a considerable extent. Although this consideration 

 does not and ought not to deter us from noticing a treatise whose 

 subject is of immediate interest to our own readers, it will serve to 

 render us guarded in our expressions, and at any rate prevent us 

 from falling into the strain of common-place puff. Were we the 

 first to notice this production of Mr. Leeds's, and to speak of it in 

 the laudatory terms which some others have employed, our praise 

 might be received with mistrust. But it has already been noticed 

 with pointed commendation in more than one quarter, as treating 

 the sul)iect admiiably. In an article on "VVeale's Rudimentary 

 Treatises," in the Mechanics' Magazine, the reviewer says: "The 

 treatise on ARCHiTEcruRE is by one of the first architectural critics 

 of the day (perhaps the very first), and has nothing to fear from 

 the worst that rival critics or chastised pretenders can advance 

 against it — which, assuredly, is saying a great deal, but not more 

 than we conscientiously believe to be true. It is confined to 'the 

 Orders' and their '.Esthetic Principles' — of which modern term 

 ^Esthetics, tliere is a clever definition in a most useful 'Glossorial 

 Index,' and which definition we here quote for the 1)enefit of those 

 — not a few — to whom the exact import of the phrase is still a 

 mystery, &c. &c." — From what has been quoted, it is evident that 

 meritorious as the treatise is, opposition to tlie views promulgated 

 in it may be expected. Undoubtedly, sucli is tlie case: however 

 they may lie hailed by those wlio come quite fresli to any study, 

 and make their first entrance into it, original and more rational 

 views of it than what had hitherto prevailed, can never be greatly 

 relished l)y those who discover — even if they will not confess as 

 much — that they have been all along guided, or rather fettered, by 

 very contracted and narrow-minded, if not absolutely erroneous, 

 doctrines. 



In another review of this treatise on the Orders, which we have 

 met with, it is said: "Unambitious as is tlie form in which it ap- 

 liears, it is likely to effect an important and desirable change in the 

 mode of architectural study and teaching — so far, at least, as the 

 Orders are concerned, by explaining their rationale upon broad and 

 liberal principles, and by getting rid of all those dull and pettifog- 

 ging rules, the adlierence to which has rendered architectural 

 design little better than a system of blind copyism and mechanical 

 routine. It is anything but a compilation manufactured for tlie 

 market: on the contrary, it is the production of an experienced 

 writer, and an original thinker.- — Neither are those from whom we 

 <|Uote the only notices that have appeared, and all which we have 

 «as yet seen are commendatory. Still, it is very probable that 

 otliers will either speak of this little treatise iu a very different 



tone, or else pass over it in silence, as being too insignificant to 

 challenge criticism. That it will produce the slightest effect upon 

 those who are already confirmed in their opinions on the subject 

 (having been trained up in the old routinier system), we do not at 

 all suppose. They, of course, will continue as they liave begun, 

 trusting that their system will continue to retain its credit during 

 "their time;' and then — apris nuns le deluge! It is only the rising 

 generation of architects who will adopt Mr. Leeds's heresies — for 

 heresies they undoubtedly are at present, though in time they may 

 come to be considered orthodoxy. A good deal of architectural 

 heterodoxy, we may remark, is just now abroad: for Mr. Fergusson 

 is to the full as great, or even a greater, heretic than Mr. Leeds. 



With respect to the publication before us, wliat, it will be asked, 

 is the particular doctrine or theory in regard to the Orders, which 

 it enunciates.^ In the first place, then, although a mere trifle, if 

 considered as a book, this treatise is evidently the result of much 

 and unprejudiced tliinking on the subject; and not its least merit 

 is the sincerity of purpose shown in regard to communicating in- 

 struction, by completely dealing away all that mystery and mysti- 

 fication with which the study has hitherto been more or less en- 

 cumbered, and obscured, and made to appear — intentionally, per- 

 haps, though not laudably so — too formidable, or at any rate far 

 too repulsively dry, to be approached by any except those who 

 apply to it professionally. Hitherto, architecture has been studied 

 and taught only either merely historically or merely technically. 

 Its nature and privileges as a Fine Art — in which character all 

 ought to be able to sympathise with, and appreciate it — have, 

 instead of being placed prominently forward, been nearly over- 

 looked, — at the most, briefly and vaguely insisted upon in the 

 abstract, but neither intelligently explained, nor dwelt upon with 

 real feeling. 



We do not pretend to say that Mr. Leeds's treatise fully supplies 

 the desideratum, liecause, being strictly confined to tlie Orders, it 

 elucidates only their "aesthetic principles;" and notwithstanding 

 that they are the basis of wliat may be called the general modern 

 European style of the art, that style includes many other elements 

 of composition. As much as is professed to be taught, is taught 

 ably and rationally; so as clearly to explain, in the first place, the 

 natural constitution of the Orders as all belonging to one general 

 system, and then considering them as divided into three leading 

 classes, each of which includes several varieties, — some of them 

 differing very widely from each other, yet all having something in 

 common which at once marks them as belonging to that particular 

 class or Order, in contradistinction from either of the other two. 

 This theory — according to which the generic character of each 

 class may be modified ad infinitum — affords the architect a degree 

 of artistic freedom hitherto denied him. Whether such freedom 

 will be welcomed by those who have been reared up in slavery to 

 arbitrary mechanical rules, may be doubted; therefore, it is only 

 to the rising generation of the profession that we can reasonably 

 look for the adoption of more liberal and artistic principles. If 

 such principles — those advocated in Mr, Leeds's treatise — can be 

 shown to be erroneous, their adoption is of course to be dejirecated. 

 Yet, before they are rejected, let them be impugned, and fairly 

 convicted of error. Otherwise, although intended to be expressive 

 of contempt, silence may be misconstrued; and instead of its being 

 supposed that the opinions brought forward by the author of the 

 present treatise remain unopposed because not worthy of being 

 replied to, it may he fancied that they are not answered because 

 they are found unanswerable. 



"Are our architects artists.''" is the question put by another of 

 those who have spoken of Mr. Leeds's treatise.'* Highly as he com- 

 mends the views entertained, the reviewer is of opinion that they 

 are too much in advance of the present practice. " Have not," he 

 asks, "all the monstrosities of modern times originated in at- 

 tempting to avoid mere routine, and attain the merit of originality? 

 And whilst we would rejoice in seeing architectural genius de- 

 veloping itself in forms of beauty hitherto unappropriated, is there 

 no danger of Mr, Leeds's advice being acted upon too literally ? — 

 There is." Yes, undoubtedly there is; but to what does the ob- 

 jection amount.'' Is only maintaining tliat because liberty may 

 be abused and converted by some into lawless license, we ought to 

 renounce freedom, as being frauglit with danger? Therefore, lest 

 some shinild go astray, all arcliitects are to be clogged, and com- 

 pelled to plod along in tlie path of routine already traced out for 

 them. The reviewer's objection would have been a decisive and 

 unanswerable one, could he have shown that the ill conse- 

 quences to the art now apprehended have invariably taken place 

 whenever architects have been left free — as was the case in former 

 times, both classical and mediaeval— to design their own detail, 



• Tlie Edinburgh News, of Dec, 16lh, 184d. 



