THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[January, 



so long long strove to discover " perpetual motion," and the means of 

 making water raise itself, known that they were, in fact, striving to give 

 to matter la%vs altogether diverse from those assigned to it in the economy 

 of natare? And yet the same efforts (applied to different objects) are 

 made in our own day. It may, therefore, be safely assumed that we can- 

 not greatly err in recording the progress of engineering, if we constantly 

 refer to pure llieory as a test of the accuracy of our judgment — if we 

 apply constantly the principles of mathematical philosophy divested of its 

 language.— The lanauage of symbols is requisite only in determining 

 exact statistical results, but the general principles of pure mechanics are 

 of universal application, and are capable of being expressed in ordinary 

 language with a facility and accuracy far beyond what might be naturally 

 anticipated, had we not eminent proofs that the attempt may be made 

 with success.* 



In Arciittectbre the determination of fixed rules of criticism is not so 

 easy a natter. Taste refuses to be fellered by the strict laws of natural 

 philosophy, and the canons of the fine arts are seldom demonstrable. 

 Still we have even here some fixed principles which rest on the safe 

 foundation of universal consent, and are susceptible of very extended ap- 

 plication. The general law that architectural beauty is dependent on 

 utility was universally recognised by those from whom we borrow the 

 only kinds of architecture adopted by us — the Classic and the Christian — 

 and it is a law which at a time like the present, distinguished by a grow- 

 ing interest in the philosophy of the arts, few will be bold enough to con- 

 trovert— the simple and indisputable rule that architectural members ap- 

 plied without use, or to wrong use, are deformities per se, will of itself 

 frequently be sufficient in determining our judgment. 



It is not however to be concluded that this principle is the only one 

 which the Classic and Mediajval architects held in common ; and it may 

 here be remarked how little progress has been made in discovering the 

 abslract principles by which these masters were guided. Of the actual 

 forms adopted by them there has been no lack of study. The lines and 

 dimensions exhibited hy standard specimens of architecture have been 

 noted down and catalogued with wonderful and praiseworthy minuteness. 

 But may it not be doubted whether the neglect of principles for the sake 

 of forms, savour not somewhat too strongly of servile coyping! An in- 

 telligent student-artist %vill, it may be fairly supposed, endeavour rather to 

 become imbued with the spirit and genius of his master, than to reproduce 

 every minute mark and characteristic of his works. 



Here seems to be the real cause why some who in our own time have 

 laboured zealously to restore one kind of architecture to its original purity, 

 have failed of the full recompense of their talents, industry, and zeal. An 

 indiscriminate adherence,to precedent hasjproducedjits never failing fruits — 

 bigotry and intolerance. Had the same labour which has been spent in 

 recording proportions and copying outlines, been devoted to the exami- 

 nation of the beautiful philosophy of which those dimensions and pro- 

 portions were the results, we should hear of few eSTorts to exalt one system 

 of pure architecture at the expense of auother, and we should probably 

 have far advanced in reducing our knowledge of ancient architecture to a 

 system by which alone we can hope to rival the masterpieces of that art of 

 which we profess to be disciples. 



But there may be some who would say further that we ought, not only 

 to avoid servile adherence to precedent respecting architectural forms, but 

 even to disown all obligation to be bound by the abstract principles of the old 

 architects. To this it seems sufficient answer that in that case we must 

 no longer profess to adopt the old modes of architecture ; we must discover 

 for ourselves some altogether new system. And though we have no 

 warrant for denying a priori, the possibility of such a discovery, still until 

 it be made — until we disown all similarity of our works to tliose of the 

 classic and niedieeval architects, we are clearly mere mimics, when we 

 borrow from them some of the forms which they adopted, and ap\ily them 

 without any regard for their original purposes. This at least is certain 

 that if we endeavour to confound together principles, which are not merely 

 different, but directly antagonistic, the result must be discordant and 

 inharmonious. 



It surely were no difficult task to show that the genius of Greek and 

 Gothic architecture are diametrically opposed to each other. Where we 

 see the two brought iuto direct contrast (as for instance in the interior of a 



* We may refer, in proof, to Airy's Ttieory of Gravitation, a work whicll exliibit3 in a 

 most extra>jrdinary manner tlie practicability of eiplaioing, in ordinary iaugULige, the 

 results of elaborate mattiematlcal researclies. 



cathedral which the admirable taste of the last age has decorated with 

 Corinthian columns,) the discordance is so offensive to the eye as to be 

 immediately condemned. But why should we not carry the principles of 

 the condemnation a little further, and condemn buildings when the details 

 belong to the one system, and the outline to another system of architecture 

 — I>uildings, for instance, in which it is enduavoured to give a lofty vertical 

 efTect by architectural members, which were originally proposed to produce 

 a horizontal effect f 



It is not to be denied that even where these considerations (indisputable 

 as they seem,) have been neglected, there have been produced buddings, 

 which, by the richness of their decorations, fail not of a certain claim oq 

 our admiration. Hut this is certain, that though the elfect in such cases 

 be gorgeous, it cannot, in the very nature of things, be pure. To copy 

 ench work is, at least, but to copy second-hand; and surely, if we be not 

 going altogether wrong iu our endeavours to purify our taste for Christiaa 

 architecture, it is but a legitimate extension of our efforts to free classic 

 architecture of the foreign ideas which have been imported into it. It 

 may be, indeed, require a certain amount of adaptation, in the application to 

 modern purposes; but the requirements of those who invented, and first 

 used classic architecture, too nearly resembled our own to permit the sup- 

 position that the adaptatioa would involve a total subversion of their origi- 

 nal principles. 



These considerations will explain, with sufficient accuracy, the course 

 wc would endeavour to adopt with respect to the two leading divisions of 

 our task. We make no profession, however, of being always able to 

 attain the true philosophy of architecture and engineering. It is safe, 

 semetimes, to simply record facts, and to wait until direct experience 

 shews the value of them. In such cases, our labour is little more than 

 that of compilation ; and even where we undertake the more hazardous 

 labours of direct criticism, we have frequently to confide in the consideration 

 that our readers are, for the most part, those who are practically aware of 

 the diversity and complexity of our task, and will make full allowance for 

 the difliculties of it. At the same time, we are well persuaded of the 

 importance of rendering all knowledge syBtematic ; ind we have this 

 trust in the principles here set forth, that if they do not always lead to 

 rapid discoveries of great truths, they will at least prevent the admission of 

 great errors— that even if ws sometimes loiter ou our road, they will 

 keep us from wandering altogether out of it. 



ARCHITECTURAL DECEPTIONS. 



To restore to architecture the excellence which it attained in the periods 

 of its greatest purity among the Greeks and Mediajval Christians, it seems 

 absolutely necessary that it should regain that hold on the popular mind 

 which it possessed during those epochs. With the Athenians the erection 

 of a temple, with our Christian forefathers, the buildiug of a Cathedral was 

 a work of no isolated or merely local import, but one which engaged the 

 interests and tasked the energies of a whole nation. Whiel printing wae 

 not jet discovered, architecture, according to the beautiful theory of a great 

 writer of our times, was the only method by which the mind of a people 

 could express itself — and this at least is certain, and independent of all 

 theoi7, that public architecture engaged far more of public attention here- 

 tofore thau now. The slighest reflection will show that the national im- 

 portance thus given to the constructive arts must have contributed much to 

 their perfection and purity, and also, that on the other hand the very ex- 

 cellence of those arts, by re action, greatly advanced the public estimation 

 of them. 



Nothing seems more fatal to the progress of architecture in modern times, 

 nothing a greater obstacle to the resumption of its former rank than the 

 custom which has unhappily crept iuto modern practice of using imitative 

 and therefore deceptive materials. The feeling of honesty and candour 

 which characterised the olden architects seems fairly out of date : and in 

 its place we have almost universally a spirit of ostentation, an all'ectalioa 

 of show, the dishonesty of pretension, the vulgarity of making things ap- 

 pear something different from, something better than, what they really 

 are. 



Where we cannot afford to build expensively, it would seem the best 

 taste to use what humbler materials are at command honestly, and without 

 auy attempt at disguise ; and to compensate as far as may be, for the want 



