1846.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECFS JOURNAL. 



377 



TAe Newlfafe Discourses on Fine Art Architecture. An attempt to 

 talk rationally on the subject. By Egbert Kerr, Architect. Weale, 

 12nio. pp. 2U8. [No ilate] 



Tlie author of this book ought to be condemned to write his own review 

 of it: his principles are so 'indefinite, and are expressed in such dilFnse 

 language that no one but himself could give a fair analysis of them. 



Trusting to the table of contents more than to au examination of the 

 book itself, we may state that the subjects considered are mainly these : — 

 The definition of architecture, considered as a fine art, comes first. Then 

 follows a contrast between an orthodox, well-fed, alderman-architect, dis- 

 tinguished principally by a sedulous regard for the main chance, and a 

 heterodox, visionary, artist-architect, distinguished (as we should say) by 

 having, as times go, no chance at all. Next, the several pursuits of two 

 Buch architects are distinguished, and are illustrated, moreover, by some 

 stories which are meant to be very funny, and are in fact very puerile. 

 Archaeology, the history of architecture, Ecclesiolog/sm, architectural 

 study, &c., are subsequently considered. The concluding topic is the 

 Royal Institute of British Architects. 



We quite agree with the opinion published by Candidas last month 

 {atife p. 328), that the book is clever and entertaining, and thp doctrine 

 (what little there is of it) excellent. We think also that the writer has 

 displayed a generous courage in defence of his art by boldly— and without 

 respect of persons — denouncing all atlempts to degrade it. But what we 

 'chiefly object to in these Discourses is, that they are overladen with verbi- 

 a,ge. The reader plods on — and on— and on — page after page, expecting 

 every moment to arrive at the gist of the argument, but never reaching it 

 till he be fairly tired out. Yon are perpetually reminded of eating 07iie- 

 htte souffle ; or quote mentally Polonius's question to Hamlet, with the 



reply — 



" Wliat do you read, my lord ?'* 

 '* Words, words, words." 



The question of Precedent, which occupies our author a good deal, 

 seems capable of being so easily stated, as to be scarcely worth discuss, 

 ing. Antiquity afJbrds a presumptive, but not a final, proof of excellence. 

 There are precedents for error as well as for truth, for bad architecture as 

 well as for good ; but still we may presume that, on the whole, good ar- 

 chitecture would be the most carefully preserved. The noblest monuments 

 of ancient art are old because they are good — uot good because they are 

 old. That is to say, their long preservation is the eCect, not the cause, of 

 their excellence. 



Both good and bad precedents have their value, however : the former 

 teach us what to emulate (uot imitate), the latter what to avoid. It is 

 well enough to say thai all art must be ultimately criticised by the princi- 

 ples of beauty observed in nature; but this canon, invaluable as it is as a 

 fundamental truth, is of that abstract nature, that its full value can be 

 learned only from its examples. Two architects may both agree as to its 

 accuracy and importance, and dilTer toto ceelo as to the methods of uppUjing 

 it. The right-thinking student, therefore, will not refuse to benefit himself 

 by the efibrts of his predecessors, which enable him to compare actual 

 examples of these different methods. 



Or, to view the subject a little more metaphysically, is it not clear 

 that the principles of beauty observed in nature, are applied in nature in a 

 manner in which they cannot be applied in art ? What the architect wants 

 to avail himself of are, not so much natural forms as natural principles. 

 Now the process of separating the one from the other is too difficult to be 

 efTected by a single trial — it must be tentative. It is only after many 

 trials and many failures that we shall be able to combine masses of ma- 

 sonry into forms useful for artificial purposes, and yet strictly restrained 

 by " the modesty of nature." That a man may have sufficient genius to 

 do this at once is possible, though not probable ; but for men of ordinarily 

 constituted minds the bare knowledge of principles is insufficient; expert- 

 ness in the correct use of them is the result of actual practice. An accu- 

 rate knowledge of hydrostatics, for example, does not necessarily lead to 

 dexterity in the art of swimming; and a man may be thoroughly versed 

 in the theoretic rules of horsemanship, and yet break his neck in the first 

 attempt to apply them. 



The attack upon the Archaeologists and Camdenists is ingenious enough, 

 but not sufficiently discriminating. Archaeologists no doubt have their 

 follies like other people, and are especially apt to consider that the most 

 estimable parts of antiquity are its dust and rust. Still tlie Archasologiets 

 are our fellow labourers, and useful in their way. They have ofien pre- 

 served or discovered monuments of the Beautiful which had else been lost 

 — and the Beautiful is ever to be venerated whatever be ite date or the de- 



signation of its guardians. The Camdenists are a still more valuable 

 body, for they openly avow the doctrine of progression. It is true that 

 they are slightly touched on the subject of symbols, and are apt to wander 

 and talk wildly when the topic is introduced. They display also a most 

 lady-like punctiliousness on the subject of dress. But take them from 

 their idiosyncracies and they show an honest generous enthusiam for artistic 

 architecture — talk like men who observe diligently, and yet are capable of 

 reasoning for themselves; reason for themselves, and yet are not above 

 confirming their judgment by observation. 



The strictures upon the Institute of British Architects are, we fear, too 

 correct. It were difiicult to say what the Institute has done, since its 

 foundation to advance the art which it professes. It is clear that the col- 

 lection of editions of Vitruvius and prize essays on slates does not forward 

 architecture a single step. Can the most zealous member of the Institute 

 inform us of any one fact or opinion elucidated during the last sessions 

 which will tend to the advancement of architecture? A\'e know of none — 

 except it be the ingenious investigation by Mr. Penrose,* tending to show 

 that the Greeks observed in their works one of the sources of beauty which 

 has been overlooked by the moderns. There were discussions usque ad 

 nauseam about plaster imitations of stone, and the Five Orders, and prizes 

 for architectural designs in which the canons of constructive fidelity were 

 systematically violated. But efforts such as these are not progressive, but 

 retrograde. 



The truth is that the Institute is too orthodox— too bigwigged — too 

 donnish, to use a Cambridge word. The individual members have, we 

 believe, a sincere love of architecture, and are actuated by the best inten- 

 tions; b',ut they are infirm of purpose, fear to speak unless they can quote 

 chapter and verse for their authority, and shut their eyes to the fact that 

 the whole system of architecture has grown debased by the lapse of time, 

 and wants reforming. 



Mr. Kerr's talents are certainly above mediocrity, and his denuncia- 

 tions are courageous, if not the most prudent. At all events he shall not 

 have cause to complain that we are opponents of his efforts to purify archi- 

 tecture. We are among the malcontents ourselves. The reform of abuses 

 which Pugin advocated in the Pointed style must in spite of opposition be 

 extended to all styles, and if Jlr. Kerr will but write a little less diffusely, 

 and lay down more definite and tangible principles, he may become an in- 

 valuable labourer in the good cause. 



We had nearly forgotten .to state that a considerable part of these Dis- 

 courses is a republication of letters addressed to The Builder. This fact, 

 in courtesy to our contemporary, ought to have been stated in the present 

 volume. The pervading fault seems to be an over-anxiety to be facetious. 

 We do not mean to say that there is no real original wit in the book, but 

 simply that we have been too dull to perceive it. 



A manual of Gothic Architecture. By F. Paley, M.A., with nearly 

 seventy illustrations. London : Van Voorst, 1846. 12mo. pp. 304. 



An instructor should always know more than he teaches. It might ap- 

 pear at first sight that the writer of an elementary treatise need possess no 

 more than elementary knowledge ; yet it is a matter of experience that those 

 who have not advanced beyond first principles cannot teach first principles 

 correctly. Profound erndition has never been more worthily displayed 

 than in smoothing the paths which lead to the gate of knowledge. 



Architecture is at present in a stale of transition from a crude code of 

 dogmas to a systematic science. Some of the simplest principles are at 

 this moment the subjects of warm con tro^■ersy, and until those principles have 

 been definitely agreed upon, it is evidently impossible to write a complete 

 elementary treatise upon architecture. Such a work may fitly teach all 

 that has been strictly ascertained, but the debated points must be reserved 

 for those who are competent for the discussion. 



It follows from these considerations that there are two qualifications re- 

 quisite in a Manual of Gothic Architecture — profound knowledge on the 

 part of the author, and the exclusion of uncertain speculations. The first 

 of these requisites is perfectly, tlie second generally, satisfied in the work 

 before us. The object professed is simply to teach the uuinilialed to dis- 

 tinguish and classify architectural details, but many of those who deem 

 their knowledge sufficient to qualify them for the praciice of the art would 

 Dud their errors tacitly demonstrated in this unpretending treatise. Mr. 

 Paley however considers the present imperfect state of church architecture 

 neither acrimoniously nor ungenerously : he sets out by acknowledging 



See ante, p. 97. 



47 



