370 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[November, 



ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEMI-ARCH WITH THE 

 FUTURE ADVANCEMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL ART. 



By Robert Carey Long, Architect, Baltimore, Maryland. 

 In au article which appeared in the Franklin Journal some months 

 back, we attempted to show that the charge of degeneracy was laid 

 against modern architecture, and that this charge could be sustained, 

 inasmuch as in architecture the law of imitation was substituted for 

 that of originalities, the copying of the external forms of the archi- 

 tectural remains of the past for living principles of composition, so 

 that now instead of an architectural work being an organized body, 

 where the external features were the natural result of its internal ar- 

 rangements and uses, it was, in fact, a mere mass, the parts of vyhich 

 were held together by the arbitrary laws of external form. 



We took occasion to say, that the merely changing the style, or 

 fashion of architecture, would in no way effect its regeneration, for, as 

 long as we follow the law of imitation, it makes little difference whe- 

 ther Grecian or Gothic be our model— and yet, we caimot but think the 

 art capable of being roused from its present prostrate condition. For 

 although its forms lie shattered and almost in decay, yet there are 

 living principles of construction from which these very forms have 

 originated, which, if properly understood, and infused into these ap- 

 parently dead elements, would effect a reorganization, and architecture 

 would once more exist, in newness of life, and perfectness of beauty. 

 In this all architectural critics agree. No one who knows anything 

 of the subject but admits, that, ever since the downfall of the gothic, 

 architectural art has been in an unprecedented state of degeneracy, 

 that not only has no new architectural style been formed, but not a 

 single element of construction, wall, column, arch or buttress has been 

 developed beyond the condition in which the 15th century left it. 



Deplorable as this condition is, it is not yet hopeless. We may 

 even discern in the fact of the growing dissatisfaction manifested 

 towards almost all the modern specimens of architectural design, the 

 dawn of a better era. When the architect looks back into the past, 

 and reflects upon the progress of architecture in all time, observes the 

 sublimity of its forms, and the stately solemnity of its measured foot- 

 steps among the Egyptians— sees its aspect of grace, proportion, de- 

 licacy, and consummate beauty among the Greeks — notices, among 

 the Romans, the change that takes place in its forms and expres- 

 sions, its massive piers, its overhanging domes, the triumphal arches, 

 and the fantastic and luxuriant character of its decorations, mingling 

 like the slern battle cry, and the shouts of victory and dominion with 

 the dulcet notes of love and revelry— when he observes also, how this 

 architectural system is broken up before its discordant elements have 

 formed themselves into a consistent whole, now, while a constant 

 struggle is still going on amognst them, the Roman empire falls, and 

 from its fragments new nations arise, and a new arc.liitecture comes 

 forth, built as it were upon the wrecks of the whole of the past, rising 

 lieavenward, and like an organ symphony, combining majesty with 

 grace, solemnity with fancy, with a dim mysterious connecting melody 

 running through all its changes. When he again beholds how even 

 this form of art endureth not, but changes, and as tiie master spirit 

 abandons the keys of the instrument, (to continue the simile), sees 

 fancy overpowering dignity, harmony becoming wild and rapid, till at 

 length the connecting melody is lost and universal discord reigns su- 

 preme ; when the architect views all this, can he help feeling that his 

 individual genius can do but little in his art, that the spiril of the age 

 must be manifested in its architecture, and that he must be inevitably 

 overruled in his efforts towards a regeneration of the art, unless the 

 community can be made to understand and feel this state of degene- 

 racy, so as to call for and second any movement that shall be made to- 

 Vfards the formation of a style of architecture peculiar, characteristic 

 of the age, suited to its wants, its desires, its demands. 



Since it is the sincere wish of every lover of architecture to see 

 this art leave the trammels in which, at present, it seems bound hand 

 and foot, and take once more that rank among the arts of design 

 which it held among the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the architects of 



the early Christian church, it becomes all such to look around and en- 

 deavour to discover some means of effectuating this important result. 

 It is granted by all who know anything of the subject, that archi- 

 tecture is not now even what it was during the development of any 

 particular stvle, that the law of imitation instead of originaltty having 

 become the rule of design, precedent must be quoted for every indi- 

 vidual feature, in short, that the architect is bound down to a pattern 

 —a isliile ; and that the best he is expected to do is to produce some- 

 thing similar to what has been produced, only sufficiently common and 

 cheap to be built at the present day, all departures from this pattern 

 being considered necessary or accidental faults. 



None can feel so deeplv this degraded state of this art as the pro- 

 fessor of it, when called 'upon for a design for a building, to be con- 

 secrated to the service of his country, or of his religion. Wherefore, 

 he says within himself, should I study the principles of architectural 

 construction? Wherefore should I know that no beauty can be pro- 

 duced without truth of design ? Wherefore should I feel all this love 

 of the beautiful in my art, this perception of its capacity for perpetual 

 rejuvenescence and perfection, if I am still obliged to grope on and 

 produce something so far, so very far, behind all that has been done 

 in the days that are gone ? 



Yet what can be done? Can the architect be before the age in 

 which he lives ? Can he do anything to counteract the law, that the 

 peculiar genius of every people must be impressed on their archi- 

 tectural works ? How little evidence of individual genius is ever pre- 

 sented in architecture I Look at all the great works cf the past ; no 

 feature in any style but must have had a beginning, and that too in 

 the mind of man, and yet style after style has arisen and departed, 

 without bearing witness to the genius, or perpetuating the name of the 

 individual minds producing it. 



Though these reflections are chilling to the heart of one who is an 

 ambitious struggler after perfection in his art, tliey should not yet 

 paralyze all endeavour after progress, for, although the architect 

 cannot be in advance of his age, he can at least diligently observe and 

 faithfully interpret its tendencies. To that which in the community 

 already exists as a feeling, he can give a body in thought, and make 

 visible to the senses in form. 



Now who has not observed in this day not only a growing dissatis- 

 faction towards all the productions of modern architecture, but also a 

 spirit of hope, a desire after progression and improvement. Let the 

 architect make his building Greek in all its parts and proportions, ob- 

 jection at once is made that it wants originality, or that it is not equal 

 in ornament or richness to the model from which it is copied. If he 

 should choose the Gothic as the mould in which his ideas are to be 

 cast, his production is laid side by side with a magnificent old cathe- 

 dral, on whose construction and decoration were lavished the wealth 

 of a monarch, the piety of a whole people, the genius of almost in- 

 spired artists, and in the consummation and perfecting of which, the 

 most powerful hierarchy that the world ever knew spent century after 

 century. What comparison can be drawn between the meagre pro- 

 duction of a single brain, and the manifestations of the maturely de- 

 veloped combination of such elements of greatness? But let the 

 architect be so unfortunate as to design a building in what is called 

 the Roman style, that absurd conglomeration of arches, pediments, 

 columns, piers and pedestals, domes and porticos, and, although he 

 may cite a precedent for every abomination he may commit, though 

 he mav by line and rule perpetrate the greatest violations of every 

 principle of truth and beautv, and cry out to every objection raised, 

 that his design is Roman and must be judged by Roman law, the day 

 is past that the declaration can avail him anything; he too must be 

 brought before the bar of universal criticism, and be made to answer 

 before the tribunal of taste. 



Now the question is, where is improvement to commence, from 

 what point must progression take place? Can the architect invent a 

 new style ? What architect ever has done it? Can he even improve 

 on what is alreadv invented? Let him try to alter one jot or tittle 

 the law of Grecian proportion, and witness what a mis-shapen abor- 

 tion is the result. Let him add but one more to the number of the 



