\S46. 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



151 



become subordinate parts of the structure. This result is produced not so 

 much by the actual dimiDution of the size of these members as by the pro- 

 minence given to the clerestory by the light proceeding from it. Now the 

 consequence of this is, a violation of the rules of "apparent construction," 

 for the greatest weight to be supported being that of the nave-roof, the 

 arches and piers should be treated as of primary importance : the archi- 

 tectural effect of them is destroyed directly they become subordinate, and 

 accordingly in the best churches the piers of the nave have great strength, 

 and the weight of the roof appears directly imposed upon them. Where, 

 however, the wall above the arches is perforated by numerous windows 

 (sometimes so numerous as to give this part the appearance of a huge 

 lanthorn), the roof never seems adequately supported ; there is an appear- 

 ance of instability produced, which is directly opposed to the canons of 

 architecture. And this instability is not always merely apparent. It is 

 frequently a matter of observation that the walls of the clerestory, where 

 they have been weakened by the size of the perforations, are thrust out- 

 wards by the pressure of the roof. This deviation from the perpendicular 

 is especially observable in cases where a Perpendicular clerestory is a 

 subsequent addition to a Decorated or earlier church. 



V. A church is not a mere fafade. That word /af«d« is Italian in its origin, 

 and both the word and thing signified belong exclusively to Italian archi- 

 tecture. The Christian architects viewed their churches not as mere sur- 

 faces or fronts, but as possessing the dimensions of length, breadth, and 

 height. The superficial style of architecture is a modern invention, doubt- 

 less derived from that habit of making up elevations on the Italian principle 

 which characterized the last century. 



Of the reversal of the shadows where the light is obtained from a cleres- 

 tory exclusively, it is not necessary to speak at large, because we have else- 

 where spoken of it. We may observe, however, that in the mouldings of 

 nave-arches and the deep undercut capitals of pillars the shadows must be 

 exactly reversed when the light is obtained from a clerestory, instead of 

 the aisles : in the one case these shadows are thrown downwards — in the 

 other upwards. Consequently the architect, if he have a due sense of con- 

 structive propriety, will never dream of using ancient mouldings in 

 churches built on the new plan— he must devise new mouldings suited to 

 the novel disposition of the light. This point is not one of speculation but 

 observation, as any one familiar with ancient mediaeval mouldings may 

 satisfy himself by examining the result of introducing them into some of 

 the new London churches, windowless aisles. 



The breaking the continuous surface of the north and south wall by re- 

 cesses instead of windows, is an expedient which by no means removes 

 the objections here assigned. We have, in a previous number, guarded 

 ourselves against the conclusion that churches are necessarily to be isolated. 

 There are many cases where chapter-houses, cloisters, &c. abut on churches 

 without marring their architecture. If however we be asked whether a 

 church built in the line of a street, between adjacent houses, and only dis- 

 tinguished from them by having its gable instead of its parapet turned to- 

 wards the street, and by the display of a few Btock-in-trade Gothic orna- 

 ments, satisfies the essential principles of mediasval architecture, we answer 

 emphatically and unhesitatingly — No. By no means — if the laws of style 

 are to be interpreted by the spirit instead of the letter — by the general 

 artistic efiTect of a design, and not by minute resemblances of detail. 



We know that architects have much to contend with in the injudicious 

 wishes and erroneous taste of those who employ them ; but we are also 

 convinced that they may frequently get over these difficulties by firmness, 

 and by explaining the reasons which fortify their own opinions. 



Of course when an architect is told to build a maximum church on a 

 given area, or a church of given cubic contents on a minimum area, the 

 question becomes one of simple geometry — all idea of architectural pro- 

 priety must be given up. In less hopeless cases, however, we would ven- 

 ture to recommend the architect to leave a little space, if only of two or 

 three feet, between the walls of the church and those of the adjacent 

 houses, — to provide at least enough space for the construction of buttresses. 

 It will require some additional expense to render the north and south walls 

 uniform in architecture with the rest of the church, and the architect will 

 have to practise some self denial, since he will not have so much money to 

 expend on the more conspicuous western end. But this self denial will 

 be well rewarded, for though there will not be so much to attract the eyes 

 of mere lovers of show, the homage paid to the principles of pure taste will 

 claim the admiration of the judicious observer, "the censure of which one 

 must, in your allowance, outweigh a whole theatre of others." 



Of course this advice is given on the most unfavourable supposition, 

 namely, that there are not funds to purchase the adjacent buildings. In 



this case it may be well left to the munificence and good-feeling of 

 future benefactors to contribute the means of removing these obstructions, 

 and displaying in all its dimensions, the edifice which then, and not till 

 then, will exhibit the character of a Christian Church.] 



THEORY OF THE ARCH. 



Sir— In our last letter we endeavoured to show that your review of our 

 pamphlet was written under a misconception of the principles therein 

 advanced, and hence the wholesale condemnation with which you were 

 courteous enough to favour us. 



You have challenged us to show where the standard writers on the 

 theory of the an h have failed in their reasoning. We should consider it 

 presumptuous to entertain any doubt of the accuracy of the statements of 

 Professor Moseley, neither does his theory of the arch, and the method by 

 which he arrives at the line of resistance and the line of pressure, militate 

 against the observations which we have ventured to bring forward. 



We maintain that the voussoirs of an arch, of any form, have'only to 

 support that portion of the superstructure where the corbelling ceases to 



II . j- 



mh r 



exist (represented by the shaded lines in the accompanying diagram). 

 Now, if the " two-centred pointed arch"— not the plate bond, which you 

 have erroneously put forward as our proposition,— shown at A, A, is sub- 

 stituted for the semicircular, segmental, or elliptical, is it not manifest that 

 there IS greater strength obtained, with less amount of material? The 

 beds of the voussoirs being nearly parallel, and the key stone of the arch 

 bemg the only portion at all affected (in a downward direction) by the 

 supermcumbent weight, it appears to us to possess advantages coequal 

 with the " merit of novelty." 



We do not consider it worth while to occupy your pages with any re- 

 marks respecting the title of our tract; if we have demonstrated that a 

 stronger arch at less cost is obtained by our method of construction, we 

 shall consider our labours amply repaid. 

 We are. Sir, 



Your obedient servants, 



Blair and Phillips. 



ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITION. 



Sir— The recent award of premiums of competitors for the Leeds In- 

 dustrial Schools, affords another source of encouragement to young archi- 

 tects, and is too good an example of what professional men have to con- 

 tend with, to pass unnoticed. 



The Committee was composed of one respectable innkeeper, a fourth- 

 rate manufacturer, a maltster, a drug dealer, a house painter, a leather 

 dealer, a grocer, and an apothecary. The Plans were hung up for the 

 private inspection of the committee and friends by a joiner, who gave the 

 names of the competitors to the parties, but to appear decent, they called 

 in a reputable architect, from a neighbouring town, to decide upon the 

 merits of the designs, and on his decision this Committee professed to act. 



Among the competitors were some four or five architects (one of whom* 

 took care, with all due nort/tern foresight, to describe by letter his pertiekltr 

 plans to his friends on the Committee, lest they perchance might favour 

 those of older and better rivals) ; another competitor was a joiner, preacher 



