1845.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL 



3G7 



far, bring bim to this important practical conclusioD,that any attempt lo im- 

 press on the one style the characteristic features of the other is inconsistent 

 with what we have termed philosophical accuracy in architecture, and there- 

 fore is not calculated for the taste of the present age. If a building is to 

 be characterised by its prolonged horizontal lines, its vertical lines must 

 be, so to speak, subdued ; both cannot predominate. Again, if a building 

 is to be distinguished by strong contrasts of light and shade, by deep 

 recesses, and a dim religious light, it is certain that we cannot impress 

 upon it the features of a style in which none of these characters exist. So 

 bIso, if we determine on producing efl'ect by combination of varied parts, 

 by the complicate groupings of numerous towers and transepts and but- 

 tresses and pinnacles, by the composition of architectural members of dif- 

 ferent sizes and form, we must give up all idea of producing edilices dis- 

 tinguished by simplicity, unity, and perfect congruity of design — the 

 expression, as it were, of one single idea, developed by itself, distinctly, 

 separately, and completely. And this is what we meant by calling 

 gothic architecture picturesque, and Grecian archicture statuesque. 



On these grounds, it seems incontrovertible that the Italian style, and 

 that known by the uanie of Louis XIV., whatever other merit Ihey pos- 

 sess, do not claim that of philosophical accuracy. In them we discern an 

 attempt to do that which is, in the very nature of things, impossible— to 

 „'ivc to one of the two great styles of architecture the characteristic 

 beauties of the other. Now this attempt arises from the natural idea, 

 (hat if we combine the beauties of both styles, we produce a result more 

 beautiful thau either; and if it had happened tliat the two species of 

 beauty were only dill'crent, and not absolutely antagonistic, then, indeed, 

 it might perhaps have been possible to succeed in the attempt ; but as it 

 i>, it seems literally beyond all human power, because it requires the 

 combination of principles which are essentially discrepant. 



Another reason which may be assigned for the comparative failure of 

 the modern semblances of classic architecture, and which may likewise be 

 attributed to the want of philosophical accuracy, is the employment of 

 archicturul members for services which, it is evident from their forms, 

 they were never intended. The slightest examination of a Grecian pedi- 

 ment shows at once its original purpose — that of forming the gable-end of 

 the roof. It is obvious from every feature of the pediment that that was the 

 purpose for which it was designed. It is admirably and perfectly adapted 

 for this use and no other. And did there exist a doubt as to the accuracy 

 of this opinion, it would be at once cleared up by the fact, that the 

 original inventors of the Grecian pediment (who might be supposed better 

 acquainted than ourselves with the true design of their invention) uni- 

 formly used it for the purpose alluded to, and for no other ; so that ne 

 are irresistibly brought to this conclusion, that if a pediment be stuck 

 upon the flat square front of a building, or if anything be built upon the 

 pediment, or by the side of it, to destroy the idea of its being the end 

 of the main roof, or, if it be used merely to cover a single door or win- 

 dow, it is applied to a purpose for which it was never intended. 



Again, we see, from the form of the column, that it was intended by the 

 designers to support and bear up a building from the ground. Its base 

 seems clearly made fur the purpose of eliective support upon the earth, 

 Bad its capital to bear safely and couveuienlly the parts resting on it. 

 The whole form is exactly suited for stren^tU and supi'ort, so that if a 

 column be emplojed as window-mouldiug, or ii it be hoisted on to the 

 first Uoor of a building, we at once see that it is not a main and essential 

 support of the edifice, and is, therefore, totally out of place; or if it be 

 used to support a pigmy statue at a great height in the air, we see that it 

 is applied to a purpose for which its strength and dimensions are ridicu- 

 culoualy dispruportioned. 



The quotation by which the present article is headed, though very trite, 

 is chosen as accurately expressive of the main object which we have now 

 in view. If, says the motto, the human head were united to the neck of a 

 horse, and the plumage and members of all soits of animals were col- 

 lected to form one figure, the result would be a ludicrous absurdity. The 

 application of the quotation to the subject before us seems perfectly ap- 

 posite. 



An anatomist will tell you that the human leg is an admirable contriv- 

 ance for the use to which it is applied — the support of the body. There 

 are an ioSoile number of beautiful coulrivauces to render it perfectly ade- 

 quate for this purpose, but its beauty wholly depends on its litness fur the 

 place it occupies. If the human arms aud legs were to change places, 

 if the former grew from the hips, the latter from the shoulders, they would 

 have lost, we intagiue, all claims lo admiration ; and yet, surely, we are 

 guilly of equally great absurdities, when we place columns, which ought 



to be the main supports of edifices, in situations where they cannot dis- 

 charge that odice. The building up of a huge column to support a little 

 statue seems no less an absurdity than would be the supporting the human 

 head on a huge leg, the other members being got rid of. A gigantic 

 column standing by itself, appears no less ridiculous than the building of an 

 architectural leg in the air, and the slicking of a pigmy column on the front 

 of a building, midway between the roof aud the ground, seems as philoso- 

 phical as the attachment of a dwarf resemblance of a leg to the breast or 

 back. 



If these views be correct, and they are not hastily adopted, we must 

 come to the conclusion, that much of what we call our classic architecture 

 more resembles the distorted fancies of a feverish dream, than the cohe- 

 rent thoughts of a healthy mind. To say that we are in a position to do 

 as the Camden Society have done, to condemn the classic styles m tola, 

 is ridiculous, for the great majority of the people of this country have 

 never yet seen a pure specimen of Grecian architecture. We do not sup- 

 pose, for instance, that any one will assert that tliere exists such a speci- 

 men in London. To do so, he must be prepared lo assert one of these two 

 things — either that there is some building in London of classic archi- 

 tecture, in which the pediment is obviously the gable end of the roof 



and in which the roof is supported from the ground by the columns 



or else that the building is to be pronounced Grecian, if particular mem- 

 bers of that style be employed irrespectively of their proper uses. 



There never was a fallacy more injurious to architecture than the 

 sophism— " Cc g-u.s(i7)iis nun est disputandum." There may be, indeed, 

 a wide range aud liberty allowed in matters of taste, but there 

 must be a limit somewhere. AVhere can that limit be better placed 

 than as a barrier to overstepping all reasonable analogy, and the " mo- 

 desty of nature." The great mass of the people may not, perhaps, jud"e 

 of architecture by the abstract principles which we have here feebly at- 

 tempted to express, but the impressions produced on their minds, thougti 

 independent of logical deduction, will be adverse to all architecture in 

 which antagonistic effects are combined, and individual members are 

 applied to purposes for which they were never intended. There is in us 

 all an universal admiration of fitness, consistency, aud order, which arises 

 from the contemplation of the works of nature ; and this inherent faculty 

 will, when the trammels of usage are overcome, be applied to the exami- 

 nation of works of art. The criticism will be applied by the great mass 

 of the people instructively, unconsciously almost, and independently of all 

 set rules ; but, being based on the natural faculties of the mind, will lead 

 to conclusions, which, as far as they extend, will be as incontrovertible 

 as those of the profoundest aud most mature judgment. 



The practical conclusion of the whole argument is this — that if we 

 woidd restore classic architecture to its first purity, we must adopt from 

 the Greeks, not only their forms, but their modes of applying them. An 

 edifice made up of members heaped together in utter defiance of 



their original purpose, is no better than a monstrous abortion an 



architectural Frankenstein. The combining, or rather confoundin'', to- 

 gether of columns, pilasters, cornices, pediments, windows, and balus- 

 trades, to make up an elevation, is a method with which we may be fa- 

 miliar, but the Greeks knew no such indiscriminate process. Such con- 

 struction may produce a gorgeous, but is incapable of pui-e effect. And, 

 as we have said, it is only by purity of effect that we can hope to re-es- 

 tablish a national taste fur classic architecture. 



Me again repeat boldly, that this purity has not been hitherto attained 

 in our own country. The lover of architecture who looks for the first 

 time on the Madeleine, at Paris, feels at once that he has found what he 

 hitherto sought in vain— a pure speciman of Grecian art. There is an in- 

 definable sensation — we know not what name to give it — a certain ad- 

 mixture of awe aud admiration, which is always produced in a reflined 

 mind at the first sight of an edifice of perfect architecture. That im- 

 pression is infallibly produced by the first sight of the Madeleine. The 

 chastened simplicity of the design, and the perfect cougruity of the parts 

 produce that feeling of numixed pleasure which in our own country is 

 aUorded by media;val architecture alone. We have, indeed, buildings of 

 pseudo-classic architecture, (that is, buildings in which certain features of 

 classic architecture are mingled together irrespectively of the proper an- 

 plication,) which, by their magnitude and elaborate confusion, produce a 

 certain feeling of amazement; and, coupling with this feeling the preju- 

 dices of custom, and the rather vague architectural notions of our fathers 

 we come to persuade ourselves that such buildings are beautiful, or at 

 least, we profess as much, for the sake of orthodoxy. After the Made- 

 leine, the edifices which perhaps come nearest to tie Greek form are the 



