i846.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



331 



tal lines of the sills and architraves are mentally united by the observer, 

 and have the effect of being continuous : the eye recognizes the windovrs, 

 not separately, but collectively as one range; and (he general direction 

 of this range being horizontal, and therefore at right angles to the columns 

 produces inevitably the appearance of disconnection among the component 

 members of the architecture. 



The paragraph in which the rusticated masonry of the Madeleine is de- 

 fended, concludes by attributing to us certain opinions on Grecian archi- 

 tecture which the writer justly treats as absurd. As, however, we never 

 expressed these opinions, we are not called upon to defend them. 



Of the Architecture of Newgate it is observed, " had it not been rusti- 

 cated, it would have bnen comparatively an insipid blank." Why, yes ; this is 

 true enough, and it brings us precisely to the very gist of the argument. Our 

 real ground of objection to rustic masonry is not so much that it is intolera- 

 bly ugly in itself as that it stands in the way of something better — bold and 

 effective composition. Had the architect of Newgate been debarred from the 

 paltry expedient by which he has palliated the nakedness of his design he 

 must have contented himself with this alternative — either to let the poverty 

 of his ideas manifest itself undisguised, or else to substitute a design possess- 

 ing intrinsic and legitimate merit. 



On examination we shall find the same remark applicable to the general 

 employment of rustic masonry. Where the architect possesses real genius 

 and correct principles of taste, the beauty of his architecture will be at- 

 tained by massive combinations, by effective distribution of light and 

 shadow, by graceful proportions, by strong contiast between the decorated 

 and undecorated parts, and by making the mechanical construction of the 

 building a source of beauty. In proportion as his conceptions are vigorous 

 and effective, he will have the less necessity to resort to rustication and 

 other insipid inexpressive save-trouble expedients. We would deprive 

 architecture of these expedients for the same reason that we would deprive 

 a child of its go-cart — that it may learn to run alone. AVhen these tricks 

 of art are got rid of, good architects will be forced, as it were, to trust in 

 their own strength, and bad architects will do as they always have done — 

 follow their betters. 



If our opponent could have assigned only one good reason why rustica- 

 tion should be employed in Classic and not in Pointed architecture, we 

 should have been satisfied that he argued on abstract principles, and that 

 his judgment had not been (as we sincerely believe it to have been) per- 

 verted by custom. This opinion is not uttered invidiously, for we know 

 how hard it is for those who have been long habituated to technical rules, 

 to look beyond them. It is well enough to tell us that "separate styles 

 have, like separate languages, their respective idioms and peculiarities ;'' 

 and that Rusticntion may be considered as a characteristic peculiarity of 

 one kind of Classic architecture — "as being part of its costume, ci.nse- 

 quently proper to that, though in any other it might show as a decided im- 

 propriety." But why — for what reason an impropriety in any other style ? 

 The only possible answer to this question is to show that the style with 

 which alone rustication harmonizes, possesses certain distinctive principles 

 which produce this harmony, but which exist in no other style. If there 

 be such principles in Classic architecture, it is surely very easy to point 

 them out. We all know what are the main distinctions between Classic 

 and Pointed architecture : tlie one is horizontal — the other vertical ; the 

 one simple — the other complex ; the one rectilineal — the other curvilineal. 

 To which of these or the other distinctions between the two great arthi- 

 teclural systems are we to attribute the circumstance that rustication ac- 

 cords with the one, and not with the other? This will, we think, be found 

 on reflection an indisputable position — that either rustication offends against 

 those Catholic principles which apply to all styles alike — or else that 

 < 'lassie architecture has certain principles, possessed by no other style, 

 which render rustication applicable to it alone. 



Which member of tliis alternative is to be adopted ? If the first, there 

 is an end of the controversy. If the second, our opponents have still to 

 point out the existence of the principles by which their position is defended. 

 Therefore the wht>le question may in some sort be said to turn on tlie 

 causes of the incongruity of rustication with Pointed architecture. Now, 

 as far as we can see, it would be less incongruous with Pointed than with 

 Classic architecture, for the former delights in a multiplicity of lines which 

 is directly antagonistic to the latter. 



Our objection that rustication precludes a contrast between the orna- 

 mental and plain parts of the structure has not yet been answered. To our 

 view, decorations derive their chief grace and fitness from contrast. If 

 eecrg part of a building were richly ornamented it cannot be denied that a 



dazzling and gorgeous effect might be produced. But the most artistic 

 architecture is not that which is most ornamented, but that in which the 

 decorations and plain surfaces are balanced against each other — in which 

 some parts are purposely left undecorated in order to enhance the beauty 

 of the rest. 



The connection between the subject in dispute and that of mouldings 

 seems also to have been misunderstood. The iesthetic value of mouldings 

 seems to consist in this, that they mark distinctly the mechanical construc- 

 tion of a building. In Classic architecture the cymatium, &c., mark the 

 outline of pediments; the antepagmenia of doorways, the taenia indicates 

 the super-position of the cross— joists on the architrave and the rautule 

 marks the termination of the inclined rafters of the roof: in Pointed architec- 

 ture the hood mouldings defines the arch of the windows, the corbel table 

 indicates the manner in which a roof or upper floor is supported : in Italian 

 architecture also the division of a building into stories is frequently with 

 the utmost propriety exhibited externally by horizontal mouldings. But 

 without the mouldings have thus a logical fitness, they are adscitiliousand 

 indefensible. It is clear moreover that their value as indications of con- 

 struction must be nearly annihilated where the wliole surface of the walls 

 is marked with lines like those of rustic masonry. lu such cases they 

 cease to be distinctive. 



Ajiothcr misapprehension of our meaning respecting rustication is the 

 supposition that we have insisted " that it is absolutely intolerable." This 

 is not the case : on the contrary, we think there are many buildings which 

 as they stand are improved by it, or rather would be worse without it. It 

 is not rustication, so much as the necessity for it, which we wish to get rid 

 of. There are many buildings— the Reform Club for instance— of which 

 the architecture is intrinsically too good to need such embellishments. 



The true end of art is to produce the greatest effect with simple means. 

 It is easy enough to overload a building with mouldings and sculpture — to 

 do that requires nut genius but money; and the vulgar, caught by the 

 glare, will give to the architect the credit which is in fact due to the work- 

 man. Architecture, except during its purest periods, has always tended 

 to degenerate into a system of surface-decorations. It is so now, and orna- 

 ment usurps the place of architecture. Directly the sjstem of polychrome 

 decoration was revived how eagerly was it caught at ! It is such an easy 

 method of making a building look showy ! Fresco-painting also, encaustic 

 tiles, and cheap imitations of costly woods will often save the architect a 

 world of trouble — the trouble of thmking. And yet these things are not 

 intrinsically worthless, or to be despised ; unlike Rustication, they are 

 valuable accessories of art, but no more than accessories — excellent ser- 

 vants, but bad masters. 



THE NEW PLANET. 



The discovery of a planet of which the existence, distance, orbit, and 

 mass had been predicted by mathematical computation long before its pre- 

 sence in the heavens had been recognised by the telescope, may justly be 

 considered, as Mr. Hind observes, ** one of the greatest triumphs of theore- 

 tical astronomy." It cannot but be a matter of regret to fiud the new 

 planet called Le Verrier's, whereas in fact the first theoretical discovery of 

 it is due to Mr Adams, who to our certain knowledge completed his in- 

 vestigation, as far as the approximations of the first order, two years ago. 

 Sir John Herschel has addressed the following letter on the subject to the 

 Athenaum. 



Collingirmd, Oct. I. 



" In my address to the British Association assembled at Southampton, 

 on the occasion of my resigning the chair to Sir U. IMurchison, I stated, 

 among the remarkable astronomical events of the last twelvemoulh, that it 

 had added a new planet to our list, — adding, "it has done more, — it has 

 given us the probable prospect of the discovery of another. Me see it as 

 Columbus saw America from the shores of Spain. Its movements have 

 been felt, trembling along the far-reaching line of our analysis, with a cer- 

 tainty hardly inferior to that of ocular demonstration." — These expressions 

 are not reported in any of the papers which profess to give an account of 

 the proceedings, but 1 appeal to all present whether they were not used. 



" Give me leave to stale my reasons for this confidence ; and, in so doing, 

 to call attention to some facts \\hich deserve to be put on record in the his- 

 tory of this noble discovery. On thel:;th of July, lS42,the late illustrious 

 astronomer, Bessel, honoured me with a visit at ray present residence. On 

 the evening of that day, conversing on the great work of the planetary re- 

 ductions underlaken by the Astronomer-Royal — then in progress, and since 

 published,* — M. Bessel remarked that the motions of Uranus, as he had 



* Tile expense of this magnificent worlc was defrayed by tjuvernuieot giants, obtaiu«u 

 at the instance of the British Association, in 1»J3. 



