18-16,] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



229 



excessive was it always so7 Was the whole character of Perpendicular 

 an easy but gaudy system of surface decoiation ? Look at the external 

 architecture of King's College Chapel. Not much surface decoration 

 there ! Plain almost to severity — bold almost to ruggedness, this glorious 

 pile exhibits more massiveness than any other Mediajval monument what- 

 ever. In the colossal disposition of its parts, it outvies even Norman ar- 

 chitecture; as for Decorated buildings, there is not one of them that ex- 

 hibits the same play of light and shadow. It seems alm»st incredible that 

 those who have constant opportunities of seeing this Chapel should speak 

 of Perpendicular architecture as characterised by superficial decora- 

 tions. 



If art is to progress, its resources must be increased — cot diminished. 

 Yet, how much must we relinquish if we decide on abandoning Perpen- 

 dicular architecture? Fan-groining, the most magnificent of all methods 

 of roofing ; the four-centred arch which, not to speak of its constructive 

 value, exhibits in its outline when correctly worked a peculiar grace 

 which no other arch possesses; the curves of contrary flexure in Perpen- 

 dicular canopies ; the square headed Tudor arches with their exquisite 

 spandrels ; these are part only of the wealth which we lose by the rejec- 

 tion of Perpendicular architecture. In no other style were the windows 

 entirely incorporated with the rest of the building. In Early English they 

 were frequently nothing but mere perforations ; in Decorated they appear 

 more connected with the rest of the architecture, but it was not until the 

 Perpendicular period that the problem of identifying them with it was 

 truly solved. There are many Decorated churches in which some of the 

 windows might be blocked up without any perceptible alteration in the 

 character of the architecture ; but it would be absurd to make the same 

 experiment in a Perpendicular edifice. Unity and harmony are essential 

 elements of beauty, and the most perfect architecture is surely that in 

 which each member is an integral and essential portion of the whole sys- 

 tem. 



The most eflfeclive way of advancing Pointed architecture seems to be 

 the liberal adoption of all three styles, and the careful preservation of the 

 distinctive characters of each. They who object to this course would 

 have us give up all the peculiar beauties of the third style, and would 

 recommend Decorated architecture, or rather a transition between it and 

 Early English, as the model for invariable adoption. A new church of 

 the pure Lancet architecture, or Romanesque, or Perpendicular, ipso facto, 

 meets with their condemnation. They affect a zeal for the future progress 

 of Pointed architecture, and yet would confine it within the narrowest 

 compass. They would SU the land with buildings of which the variety 

 and originality should be a minimum ; 



Facies non omnibus una, 

 Nee diversa tamen. 



Such edifices would bear the same relation to the glorious works of our 

 ancestors which prize poems do to poetry. They would bear all the aca- 

 demical polish and insipidity of the former, without a particle of Iha 

 genius and spirit of the latter. 



It remains with architects to judge for themselves which path they will 

 choose — whether they will limit themselves to one style, or adopt the 

 catholic feeling which we have here advocated. Me have, however, one 

 parting word of advice to those who presume to build in styles proscribed 

 by either of the Universities. These architects are almost certain to be 

 condemned by one or the other class of academical critics, and if the cri- 

 ticisms be founded merely upon the distinctive prejudices of either body, 

 may safely congratulate themselves that no more serious objections have 

 been alleged against them. 



We are sorry to have to inculcate a certain amount of indifference to 

 criticism, but it is necessary for the purpose of our present paper— a more 

 liberal and extended view of Pointed architecture— that we should do so. 

 At the same time, the architect must be warned that if his efforts be con- 

 demned on purely architectural grounds, the condemnation usually pro- 

 ceeds from those wlio are qualified to pronounce it. We have no reluct- 

 ance in sayiiii; that we have learned much from the pages of the Ecclesio- 

 logist acid the Keports of the Oxford Architecture Society. With respect 

 to our contemporary especially, we have seen with great satisfaction the 

 tendency recently exhibited to advocate progress in architecture : instead 

 of being told that antiquity and perfection are synonomous, we are now 

 bidden to look forward to a perfection of English architecture, compared 

 with which the glories of Cologne shall be as nothing. There are many 

 other points of sympathy between us — the war against unfaithful architec- 

 ture, which, however, we do not limit to the lUedia:val styles — the con- 

 demnation of superficial " save-trouble" expedients — the admiration of 



such men as Didron, Willis, and —let 03 add — the author of the Manual 

 of Gothic Mouldings. We recognise the general soundness af the archi- 

 tectonic criticisms of the Ecclesiologist, and if ever we dissent from them 

 it is with regret ; but we have uniformly found the most liberal and gene- 

 ral views of art to be the most valuable, and are unwilling to sacrifice its 

 interests to an exclusive spirit which, we believe, will be found on exa- 

 mination to result from the prejudices of academical education. 



Our paper has already reached considerable length, and this must be the 

 excuse for not fully examining the proposed alterations in the nomenclature 

 of Pointed architecture. Brevity on this subject is the less to be regretted, 

 because names are less important than things. A good nomenclature is that 

 which is definite, generally received, and not liable to be changed. For 

 this reason we are unwilling to disturb the well known appellations in- 

 vented by Rickman for the three great divisions of Pointed architecture- 

 Early English — Decorated — Perpendicular. These names have certainly 

 the fault of want of homogeneity : the first refers to a date, the second to 

 the amount of ornament, the third to the character of the ornament. The 

 dissimilarity between the second and third is however avoided by remem- 

 bering that Rickman spoke of Decorated in contradistinction to Florid, one 

 of his names for the third style. These names however are well understood, 

 and being suggestive are easily remembered. ^The titles First, Second, and 

 Third Pointed, are not so suggestive, and besides are unnecessary innovo- 

 tions. They are also deficient in homogeneity. For the term Pointed 

 should be balanced against the term Round, as the Ecclesiologist tacitly 

 confesses, in the same way as the French term Ogival is balanced against 

 Plein Ceintre. Yet the advocates of the new names inconsistently call the 

 style anterior to Pointed — " Romanesque," from the name of the People 

 from whom this style was mediately derived. The term Third Pointed 

 has also the grand defect of confounding Perpendicular with a style alto- 

 gether different — Flamboyant. The old nomenclature is not theoretically 

 perfect, still it is more so than the new one, and besides is sufficient for all 

 practical purposes. 



We agree with the Ecclesiologist in condemning the term Gothic. His- 

 torically speaking, it involves an anachronism, and, moreover, it was in- 

 vented as a term of reproach by those who knew nothing about it. For 

 the latter reason we also object to calling Classic architecture Pagan — we 

 would as soon speak of classic literature as Pagan. The term confounds 

 a style which the EcciesioZog^ijt confesses to be "faithful," "beautiful," 

 and to have been produced by a " beauty-loving people," with the archi- 

 tecture of the Hindoos and Mexicans. There can be no objection, how- 

 ever, to the application of the term to the mongrel architecture of 

 " Classic" cathedrals, and to all attempts at combining the horizontal con- 

 struction of the Grecian with the vertical construction of the Mediaeval 

 architects.* 



ARCHITECTURAL RECOLLECTIONS OF ITALY. 

 By Frederick Lush. 

 {Continued from page 109). 

 In considering any ornaments in connection with the architecture of 

 Italy, or the numerous bronze and marble works which adorn her piazzas, 

 we see how much the grander and more imposing chdracler of buildings 

 is set off by these smaller embellishments. In Tuscany, and elsewhere, 

 in the time of Lorenzo Ghiberti and Donatella, the churches and cathe- 

 drals were decorated with apostles and scriptural subjects, and heroes 

 occupied her colonnades ; in the same way as formerly fables were re- 

 presented by Phidias on the temples, and statues of gods and sages stood 

 under the porticoes of Greece. Aud the similar works were attended 

 with corresponding happy results. In each epoch and country, the artist 

 " felt himself a public benefactor ;"t aud he was one. Now, in Italy, the 

 respect paid by ihe fuwest and most uneducated classes to artists, whether 

 native or foreign, is greater, perhaps, than it is in any other country ; and 

 we think this is chiefly owing to the exhibition of works of art in all her 

 public places. However easy of access they may be, museums and pic- 

 ture-galleries will do little towards enlightening the people and interesting 

 lliem in the cause of the line arts, compared with the good derived from 

 tlie works of acknowledged artists, in spots which men habitually frequent 

 Nothing has had such a tendency in the south to engage the feelings and 



* We must guard ourselves against appearing to condemn the use of heraldic devices 

 u-l.ere occasion renders them necessary, 'i he condemnation in the text refers to the gra. 

 tiuluus cnjflojuient ol mouatrous and unnatural forms as purely arctiileclural ornaments. 



Hulilt. 



