1842.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



sas 



REVIEWS. 



Architecture of Machinery ; an Essay on propriety of form and pro- 

 portion, with a view to assist and improve De<:ign. By Samuel 

 Clegg, Jiin., C.E. London: John Weale, 1S12. 



If the execution of this work had been at all answerable to the 

 interest of the subject it professes to discuss, our present task would 

 have been a more agreeable as well as a more simple one. But after 

 a diligent perusal of Mr. Clegg's essay, we find ourselves unable to 

 resist the conviction that its author has failed in his object, and that 

 the consummation which this essay was intended to bring about is just 

 as remote as ever. We feel it, therefore, in some measure incumbent 

 upon us not merely to enter a protest against the heresies into which 

 Mr. Clegg has fallen, but, so far as our limits will permit, to relieve 

 the necessities his essay was meant to extinguish. 



We perfectly agree with Mr. Clegg in thinking that the beauty of a 

 piece of machinery is a consideration by no means unimportant, and 

 it is one in our mind second only to the qualities of efficiency and 

 convenience. We believe, with Mr. Clegg, "that the majority of 

 those for whom machines are constructed cannot enter into the merits 

 of their internal action, or of their comparative performance; and, 

 therefore, not being willing to yield the right of opinion, judge from 

 outside show, as tliey would of a picture or statue, where the only 

 aim is to charm the eye, or excite pleasurable sensations in the mind." 

 We think also that " It may, therefore, be inferred that in many 

 instances the want of elegance in the contour of a machine is not only 

 displeasing to the spectator, but disadvantageous to the manufacturer;" 

 and we believe that it is disadvantageous to the manufacturer because 

 popularly displeasing. But we cannot assent to the legitimacy of the 

 conclusion deduced by Mr. Clegg from this proposition: we do not 

 think it follows that, where architectural contour is unattainable 

 without the infraction of architectural rules, it will, therefore, be the 

 best or even the most popular course to adhere to the mechanical 

 contour merely, or be content with those unadorned forms which 

 science indicates as the best for withstanding the strains to which 

 machinery is subjected. The selection of such unembellished forms 

 ■we may suppose would be made by the accomplished mechanician, 

 who would probably see in their superior scientific fitness an ample 

 compensation for their destitution of ornament ; but we can scarcely 

 suppose such inducements to be operative with those who, without 

 any pretensions to scientific capacity, are nevertheless disinclined to 

 surrender their right of judgment, but judge of an engine as they 

 •would judge of a picture or statue. Upon such persons all evidences 

 of nicety of scientific disposition must manifestly be thrown away ; 

 and they will in general esteem that to be the handsomest design 

 ■which is the most exuberantly embellished. It is quite true that many 

 of the designs to wliich a preference so regulated will be given must 

 probably be ungraceful and incongruous; inconsistent perhaps with 

 every principle of good taste, as well as with every established prin- 

 ciple of science. But this only argues the absence of good taste among 

 those who are pleased with such barbarisms, at the same time that 

 it shows they are solicitous to gratify a sentiment which to them stands 

 in the place of it. Nor can we be astonished at this depravity of 

 taste among the multitude, when we remember how rankly it flourishes 

 among those even with whom science is familiar, and reflect that taste 

 is the resultant of an infinitude of influences, each slight in its indi- 

 vidual character, and too remote and evanescent to be determinable 

 by rules, or be susceptible of reduction to any empirical form of 

 expression. The great majority of mankind are not only destitute of 

 that natural sensibilitj' upon which delicacy of taste can alone be 

 engrafted, but are often unpossessed even of that knowledge which is 

 necessary to enable them to distinguish glare and extravagance from 

 true sublimity. To the less obvious or obtrusive beauties they will 

 be insensible ; they will derive pleasure from what is distasteful to 

 those of more cultivated understandings, and will often mistake 

 imperfections for excellence. 



It appears to us then th-at Mr. Clegg's argument, instead of proving 

 the propriety of engineers adapting the exterior of their machinery 

 to the taste of their customers, rather shows that the customers ought 

 to improve their taste, or not intermeddle. But at the same time we 

 find that Mr. Clegg, in opposition to his own precepts, recommends 

 a style of machinery the alleged superiority of which rests upon 

 qualities which science alone can illustrate, and which the commonalty 

 can neither appreciate nor comprehend. There is much inconsistency, 

 we think, in this part of Mr. Clegg's dissertation. He first tells us, 

 p. 2, that an attention to outside show, or, as we understand it, to em- 



bellishment, is highly expedient, whilst in p. 3 he deprecates the use 

 of any ornament whatever. " If," says he, " those parts (of machinery) 

 are made in such a manner that they have strength in the proper place, 

 stability without unnecessary weight, and simplicity of form without 

 meanness, they require no other ornament, because their own propor- 

 tions will constitute their greatest." We confess this looks very much 

 like a riddle to us. The embellishment of machinery either is or is 

 not expedient, and we should have been thankful to Mr. Clegg, had 

 he stated a little more clearly to vihich doctrine his opinion inclines. 

 From the examples of marine engine-framing which he recommends, 

 and other circumstances, we conclude that he is hostile to the intro- 

 duction of any embellishment whatever, on the principle, we presume, 

 that that which contains everything necessary and nothing redundant 

 is the most fit, and consequently the most beautiful. If this be Mr. 

 Clegg's creed — and we believe "that it is — we must say that we think 

 it a very preposterous one. Fitness, though a constituent of beauty, 

 is not the only constituent : disproportion will, it is true, give pain, 

 and symmetry will confer pleasure ; but many things, though perfectly 

 well proportioned, and excellently adapted to their intended purposes, 

 have very slender claims upon our admiration on account of their 

 beauty. A barracks or a cotton mill may be as well adapted to their 

 respective ends as St. Paul's or the Parthenon, but who would, there- 

 fore, pretend that they were equally beautiful ? In like manner, an 

 engine with a wooden beam or wooden framing, and with the malleable 

 iron work, with the exception of the rubbing parts, just as it left the 

 smith's anvil, maybe as scientifically constructed, and in every respect 

 as efEcient as the most highly-finished engine that ever was manu- 

 factured. But who would, therefore, be prepared to maintain that it 

 must necessarily be as handsome? We differ entirely from Mr. Clegg, 

 in regarding fitness as synonymous with beauty ; at the same time we 

 willingly admit that beauty can never exist in perfection where fitness 

 has not been scrupulously attended to. 



In p. IG Mr. Clegg favours us with the following definition of taste, 

 which appears to us liable to exception: — "By the word Taste is 

 meant that proper and well-directed exercise of the judgment by 

 which a man acquires facility in detecting impropriety of form, and 

 distinguishing with readiness the masterpieces of great hands from 

 the performances of vulgar artists." Now correct taste, we contend, 

 involves not merely the possession of a sound judgment, but of a good 

 deal more. Any mathematician can determine the proper form of a 

 body to resist any given strain, and a man of great knowledge and 

 experience may be supposed capable of determining the best shape 

 and proportion of a structure for fulfilling any required condition. But 

 all this may be settled and the question of beauty remain untouched, 

 and it is only indeed where the dominion of judgment ends tha'; the 

 empire of taste properly begins. Not that there is anything in taste 

 inconsistent with the results which judgment has developed, or even 

 independent of them, but that when science has exhausted her skill, 

 another agency is available to carry us to a still higher pitch of 

 excellence, and to heighten our enjoyment, not by any new evidences 

 of fitness, or by any appeal to our judgment at all, but by calling into 

 activity a multitude of hidden sympathies, and establishing a commu- 

 nion with the most exalted sensibilities of our nature. We do not mean 

 to say that in looking at machinery — whatever be its character — such 

 feelings are likely to be excited in any eminent degree ; but whatever 

 pleasure may be derived from its inspection, over and above that due 

 to the sense of its judicious construction and arrangement, is undoubt- 

 edly due to their existence. Beauty is not to be estimated by the 

 rule or the plummet, or computed by means of logarithms ; and 

 the author of the work before us, by reducing beauty to a mere 

 question of fitness which may be so estimated has, in our opinion, 

 degraded taste from her proper sphere, and proved himself incom- 

 petent for the function he has ventured to exercise. 



But it is time that we should consider some of the forms of 

 machinery with which Mr. Clegg presents us. Fig. 24 is the framing 

 of a marine engine, as constructed by the Butterley Company ; fig. 25 

 is the raarineengine-framing of Boulton and Watt; and fig. 2(! resem- 

 bles the framing made by Mr. Clegg for the City of Londonderry and 

 other vessels. There is no attempt at decoration in any of these 

 examples, and they are all, in our estimation, far from handsome. 

 Fig. 27 is the framing of the Wilberforce, the diagonal stay of which 

 is curved. We agree with Mr. Clegg in thinking this curve disad- 

 vantageous, but the object was not, as he supposes, to introd\ice a 

 large condenser. The stay of the framing of the Royal Tar, by the 

 same maker, is likewise curved, although the condenser is of the usual 

 description ; and that framing has stood and lasted better than any 

 with which we are acquainted. Fig. 28 is the framing of the Don 

 Juan ; fig. 29 the framing used by Messrs. Seaward ; and fig. 30 that 

 atone time used by Messrs. Fawcctt and Co., of Liverpool: these 

 three framings are of the Doric order. We agree with Mr. Clegg in 



