18 J6.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



163 



capacity of things for the purposes which their forms suggest renders them 

 absurd ; the application of this theory to the subject of the present paper 

 will not be very difficult. 



Whatever is opposed to the principles of common sense must be opposed 

 to the principles of good taste; and if architects have determined thai 

 they will not recognise this axiom, they will find out sooner or later that 

 the people, at least, have done so. We have endeavoured on a former 

 occasion to show why Pointed architecture is gradually subverting the 

 Classic. Every day adds to the strength of our conviction that this tend- 

 ency can only be resisted by studying Grecian architecture in the same 

 spirit as Pointed architecture — that is, by investigating its genius and 

 spirit. The greatest injury which it has received has been inflicted by in- 

 judicious admirers, for they have endeavoured to incorporate with it forms 

 and ideas which can never amalgamate with it, because repugnant to ils 

 very nature. If it be not purged of these inconsistencies we may be quite 

 certain that it will soon altogether fall into disuse. The taste of the people 

 will pronounce for mediaeval architecture, not on the ground of ils abstract 

 superiority, but because it is more philosophically studied and practised, — 

 and unless architects will lead the popular taste, lliey will certainly be 

 compelled to follow it. 



Not that we wish to advocate the exclusive adoption of pure Classic 

 architecture — this pure classicality is generally nothing better than insipid 

 imitation — but what we contend against is, the alfectation of classicality 

 where there is no chance of its being successfully realised. Surely it is 

 better to erect a building without columns at all, than to stick columns on 

 the surfaces of the walls, here, there, and everywhere, and to jumble to- 

 gether columns of all sizes (and belonging to three or four different styles) 

 in the same edifice. To look at some modern edifices, one would think 

 that the architect had ordered his columns at so much a dozen, and that 

 it was quite an after-thought where he should put them. 



This indiscriminate predilection for columns aud pediments (and the 

 pigmy resemblances of them) is in the vilest taste. Is it quite impossible 

 that a huildiog can be beautiful without these appendages? On the con- 

 trary, we are not certain whether columns and pediments might not be 

 entirely banished from domestic architecture with advantage. If stuck on 

 to the front of a house, they are mere caricatures ; if used according to 

 their original and proper purpose, they generally obscure the light of the 

 building and diminish its convenience. 



VV'ith respect, however, to the more immediate subject of this paper — 

 the form of windows— there are one or two things besides the bits of 

 columns and pediments, which might conveniently be suffered to go out of 

 fashion. There is, for instance, a poor contrivance for breaking the con- 

 tinuity of surfaces by bevilling the edges of the stone; it is, at the best, a 

 wretched expedient. The architect has not skill enough to group his sha- 

 dows in masses, and, therefore, to render the flatness of the unbroken sur- 

 faces somewhat less intolerable, he gives the masonry the appearance of 

 being badly jointed. Cognate to this flimsy artifice is that of scoring in 

 the surfaces of the stone deep irregular channels which give it the appear- 

 ance of being worm-eaten. This kind of masonry receives the gentle ap- 

 pellation of " rustic masonry," — we should have thought " tattooed ma- 

 sonry" a more appropriate term. l''ancy the Parthenon thus gashed and 

 cicatrised ! 



Another practice in the construction of windows is the placing them so 

 that the architraves intrude upon the frieze of an order, the continuity of 

 which is broken to make way for the intruders. This practice is so evi- 

 dently indefensible that it is not necessary to waste argument upon it. 

 The fault is happily not very prevalent, but if the reader require an in- 

 stance, we will refer him to the cathedral church of St. Paul. 



The last solecism we have here to notice, is the construction of sham- 

 windows (and also of sham-doors, for most of the rules respecting win- 

 dows are applicable to doors). These, like other shams and pretences, 

 generally reveal their own dishonesty. The architect who makes use of 

 these expedients reflects far more severely on himself than the strictest 

 critic could, for he confesses that he has managed his design so badly 

 that, for the sake of uniformity and symmetry, he ought to make more 

 windows than the purpose of the building requires, and that he has no 

 better way of getting over the difficulty than by building sham windows in 

 places where it is either unnecessary or absolutely impossible to construct 

 real ones. 



With respect to these and all other artifices and make-beliefs, we have 

 one safe and certain rule to guide us — architecture is not a system of 

 artifices. Its claim to elevated rank among the fine arts rests on much 

 higher aud nobler principles than those of trick and show. But there is 



BOW, unhappily, in all the fine arts a fashion for imitation, which is dia- 

 metrically opposed to true artistic feeling. In painting, we have minute 

 resemblances of leaves, fruit, or the pattern of silk and embroidery. In 

 sculpture, sublimity of general expression is thought less important than 

 accuracy in chiselling each particular hair, vein, or wrinkle of the skin. 

 In music, we have clattering railway overtures, crashes iu the base to re- 

 present thunder, and runs in the treble to imitate the nightingale. And in 

 architecture, we must have stone look like lace, and iron like stone ; we 

 consider it imperatively necessary that every material which we use should 

 look like something else than what it really is — above all we prefer the fop- 

 pery of sticking on a few bits of finery here and there to the harmony of 

 composition, the due disposition of light and shadow, the adaptation of 

 every member to its appropriate office, and that general dignity which 

 results rather from the conscious possession of beauty than the ostentatious 

 display of it. 



A NEW THEORV OF THE STRENGTH AND STRESS 

 OF MATERIALS. 



By Oliver Byrne, Professor of Mathematics. 



I do not intend to occupy much space or time in dilating on the import- 

 ance of my subject, or in giving a history of its rise and progress, or in 

 making apologies when I differ from my predecessors, however instructive 

 entertaining, or judicious an opposite procedure may be; but when I do 

 differ, I will give my reasons for doing so without a circumlocutory apo- 

 logy. 



Theory tells us that if a uniform bar — no matter what the figure of the 

 cross section may be, or what substance it may be composed of— be sus- 

 pended by one extremity, and loaded at the other till it is on the point of 

 being torn asunder, the weight and the corresponding transverse sectional 

 area are proportional. The bars or rods compared requiring only uniform- 

 ity and equality of texture, we may lay down a general law, the lateral 

 resistances (in the direction of a perpendicular to the transverse sections) 

 are in proportion to the areas of these transverse sections. This law is very 

 evident, for if a bar or rod were conceived to be longitudinally divided 

 into any number of equal strips, no reason could be assigned why one of 

 these strips should support a greater portion of the weight than any of the 

 others, so that each would support an equal part of the weight, in the same 

 manner as an assemblage of equal parallel ropes divide the weight of an 

 appended body equally among them. Experiments on lateral strains prove 

 these deductions to be correct, and it affords an instance iu which theory 

 and practice may be said to coincide. The contrary is the case when the 

 beam or bar is supported in a horizontal position, for then, the law of re- 

 sistance, opposing fracture by an incumbent weight or force, is more diffi- 

 cult to establish, because we do not so readily see how the resistiu" forces 

 exert themselves. Unlike lateral strains, the discrepancy existing between 

 the results given by theory aud by experiments is very great indeed • so 

 much so, that very little can be relied on the theoretical results thdl are 

 beyond the range of experiments. Indeed, with experiments of a ran^e 

 sufficiently extensive, no very great mistake can be made, however loose 

 and uncertain the theory may be ; but when we require a step far beyond 

 our experiments, such as the determination of the best form and dimensionj 

 for a tubular bridge like that proposed by Mr. Stephenson, then the want 

 of a theory, supported by experiment is a very great requirement. 



Fig.l. 



Galileo was of opinion that if a beam were supported ai its extremities 

 as iu fig. 1, and loaded by a weight at the middle, that all the fibres or fila'. 

 meats would exert equal resistances to prevent fmcture, aud that when 

 these were overcome the whole would tend to turn about that boundary 

 A B, in contact with the weight. 



As this view of the subject supposes all the fibres to exert equal resist- 

 ances, aud in the direction of their lengths, these resistances will be's* 



21* 



