18-16.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



105 



UNFAITHFULNESS IN ARCHITECTURE. 



By unfiitlifulnpss in architecture we mean — the employment of forms or 

 materials in such a manner that the true character of the architecture is 

 disguised. This delinition includes the use of materials deceptively, the 

 application of arcliiteclural members to wrong purposes, the introduction 

 of them when not used constructively, and lastly the decoration of the con- 

 spicuous parts of a building in sncli a manner that the eye is deceived as 

 to the architectural character of the parts unseen. 



A curious instance of unfaithfulness in architecture has recently been 

 exhibited in some buildings connected with the Croydon Atmospheric 

 Railway, in the employment of structures, resembling in form the turrets 

 of Pointed Architecture, as chimneys. From these turrets may be seen 

 issuing day by day dark volumes of smoke, and consequently all the upper 

 portions of the ornamental work are blackened with soot. This begrimed 

 specimen of mock architecture is of course so ridiculous that the most 

 superficial observer ran detect the absurdity of it : but it must be carefully 

 noted that though in this case the accident of the discolouration has ren- 

 dered the archilectcrral error palpable, it is not that accident which con- 

 stitutes t\ie error — the principles of pure taste would have been quite as 

 much violated even if the ridiculous appearance of the soot-covered njould- 

 ings had not rendered the violation manifest. At the same time we ought 

 always to feel satisfaction when these accidents occur, because they render 

 obvious to the most uneducated observers, the defects which otherwise 

 would be condemned by those only who had studiously examined the 

 principles of architectural taste. Though in fact we shall usually find 

 that in all instances like these of the Gothic chimneys, some attendant dis- 

 aster is sure to follow, which by a kind of architectural retribution — 

 punishes the error by a signal publication of it. 



To return hiwever to the general subject, we may remark that one of 

 the necessary consequences of architectural unfaithfulness is the neglect of 

 what has been aptly termed apparent construction. This term (lirst intro- 

 duced by Prof. Wdlis, we believe), signifies that development of the con- 

 struction of a building by which it is made manifest how each part is sup- 

 ported, and in what manner each member contributes to the stability of the 

 whole. It is not of course to be argued that wherever apparent construc- 

 tion is unironnly observed, the architecture is necessarily beautiful ; be- 

 cause in that case we must be prepared to find beauty in a hut, a sty, or a 

 stable; for in these structures the principles of apparent construction are 

 generally observed for the sake of economy. But still the converse pro- 

 position may be safely asserted, namely, that where apparent construction 

 is violated one of the sources of the beautiful is neglected ; and it also 

 seems an unavoidable conclusion that where forms which are individually 

 beautiful are combined faithfully, the resultant must necessarily be beauti- 

 ful also. 



It is necessary that the exact value of faithfulness as an element of 

 beauty should be thus clearly ascertained, because it is not uncommon to 

 hear those who argue most zealously for the necessity making architecture 

 faithful, sjieaking as if they thought that by securing to it this single merit, 

 perfection was attained. For instance we find one of our contemporaries 

 pronouncing the architecture of the Parthenon, faithful and therefore 

 beautiful, whereas it is clear from the common instances which we have 

 adduced, that faithfulness is separable from beauty— that it is but one ele- 

 ment (though an essential one) of beauty, for we may readily conceive the 

 possibility of architecture being faithful which is not beautiful, though it 

 be quiie impossible to imagine perfectly beautiful architecture which is 

 not faithful. 



M e will take an instance, and perhaps our selection may appear a bold 

 one, to illustrate our meaning. The dome of St. Paul's, nolwiihstaiiding 

 the astonishing constructive skill which it displays is disiinclly an example 

 of neglect of the rules of apparent construction. The exlcriordome instead 

 of being supported entir.ly by the substructure, as it appears to be, is in 

 fact carried by a timber framing resting on a cone of brickwork concealed 

 between the inner and outer cupol.is. On this cone of brickwork also 

 rests the lanlhern, which apparently is supported by the outer dome. More- 

 over the lateral thrust to the cone is resisted not by buttresses or other sup- 

 ports openly displayed, but by a bidden iron chain, which by its tenacity 

 preseries the stability of the nia>onry. 



If it appear very bold heterodoxy to adduce such an instance as this, we 

 will bring the architect himself as a witness to cunoborale our opinion. Il 

 wdl be remembered that the original design submiited by Sir Christopher 

 W req, for St. Paul's, was rejected. In this first design, of which a model 



exists in the present cathedral, "he endeavoured to gratify the taste of the 

 connoisseurs and criticks with something coloss and beautiful, wi'h a de- 

 sign antique and well studied, conformable to the best style of Greek and 

 Bonian architecture." Respecting this second design however— that ulti- 

 mately adopted, we are told in the Parcntalia, that be " then turned his 

 thoughts to a cathedral form so aUered m to reconcile as near as possible 

 the Gothic to a belter manner of architecture." — That is, he attempted an 

 impossibility. 



The character of St. Paul's, as has been recently stated by Professor 

 Cockerell in bis lectures, is (independently of the individual members) that 

 of a Medisial Cathedral. A cruciform building with a lofty central dome, 

 it is obviously as different in form as it possibly can be, from the ancient 

 classic models. And consequently in reconciling classic architecture to 

 forms which it never contemplated, and for which it was not desifiied it 

 was necessary to import numerous contrivances which never belonged to 

 the original style, and which therefore of necessity involved the violation 

 of the principles of apparent construction. 



To take another instance, and perhaps the most flagrant one in the same 

 building,— who would imagine by inspection fio n the exterior, that the 

 whole of the upper order round the church is nothing but a mask to conceal 

 the flying buttresses behind it which are similar in purpose to those which 

 in the ancient cathedrals are not only displajed openly, but are among the 

 most beautiful features of the architecture. (Jf the hundreds w ho pass St. 

 Paul's daily, how few are aware that the whole masonry which appears 

 above the lower range of columns is an isolaied mask, that it has nothin" to 

 do with the interior of the building, that it might be removed without pro- 

 ducing the slightest change in the interior, that in fart it is merely an ap- 

 pendent excrescence answering no purpose whatever except that of con- 

 cealment.* 



It can scarcely be denied that the adaptation of classic architecture to 

 the mediaeval form involves incongruities and necessitates unfaithfulness 

 of construction. The mere consideration that the characteristic of the one 

 style is verticality, and of the other horizontality, s. ems sufficient proof 

 that the two can never be successfully rei onciled. lu these particulars 

 Damelj — the predominance in the one of vertical, and in the other of 

 horizontal lines — the two styles are not merely different but are diametri- 

 cally opposed to each other. And it is clear that this antagonism is so 

 direct, that it can never be avoided except by the violation of the principles 

 of one or both kinds of architecture. 



This truth has been laid down with sufiicien! distinclnes's by others than 

 ourselves ; but there is another great distinction between Christian and 

 Classic Architecture, which though generally neglected is a most frequent 

 cause of architectural unfaithfulness — Classic Architecture is characterized 

 by DNITY— Christian Architecture by multiplicity. In the most perfect 

 specimen of theClassic stjie, the Parthenon, the ground plan is the simplest 

 possible, a rectangle, and all the details are combined so as to represent to 

 the mind one single uncomplicated idea. In the most perfect specimen of 

 the Media-val style, — Cologne Cathedral, perhaps — the effects of awe and 

 astonishment are produced by the combination of an infinite number of the 

 most varied forms: the effecis therefore in these two cases depend on en- 

 tirely diflcrent principles. M'e endeavoured to explain this distinction io 

 a former paper, by designating the one style as statuesque, that is, resem- 

 bling a statue or sculptural group, in which every part contributes to the 

 development of one single thought or action, and the other as pic/urcsji/e, 

 because it derives its beauty from the same various and complicated group- 

 ings which characterise the highest kind of painting. 



If it be once admitted that Grecian and Christian Architecture are re- 

 spectively distinguished by unity i)i>ii multiplicity, it follows as a necessary 

 consequence that an edifice in which the design as a nhole is Mediajval, 

 and the individual members Classic, must be incongruous. It would, we 

 think, be scarcely denied that, were it necessary at the present day to build 

 a new mefiopohtan church of the same iinporlauce as St. Paul's, notwith- 

 standing the general admiration of the architeciure of Sir Christopher 

 \\ ren, the attempt to combine the cathedral form with the elements of 

 Corinthian architecture would not be renewed. 



Archiieclural criticism has frequently been censured for deficiency in 

 fixed leading principles. Those whose office it is to pronounce on the 



* Ttiat we may not appear singular in th'S criti' ism, we quote the foUowing from the 

 i!e5c:iptioii ot this church in Gvvilt*s Kiityclupedia of Architecture. " tVe must here 

 niutition une of the most unpardonable de'ects or rallier abuses which tliis church ex- 



h'tjil^ Tite enormous expense ot tile second or upper older all around the church was 



incurred lor no other purp. &e than that of cotitealing the flying bullresses tlut are uset) 

 to coui.teract the tlirusls of the vaults of the nave, ctioir, a.iil transepts- an abuae that 

 aduii'.s of no apoloyy. It is au architectuiul fraud."— B. I. ch, HI. sect. 7. 



14 



