Architectural Refinements 
can be seen frequently irregularities occasioned by 
the retention of walls, screens, temporary roofs, etc., 
to the last moment, until the new work outside of 
them could be with great rapidity made good on to 
the old. 
Class V.—There is another set of variations from 
formality which have also somewhat fallen out of 
the custom of moderns for the reason that our build¬ 
ing is so strictly governed by the use of the drawing- 
board. When there was less of this drawing, the 
habit of the mason and the comenience of his craft 
made walls to batter and arches to be slightly stilted, 
and all the building of churches to show a host of 
other small manipulations away from the exact ri¬ 
gidity of the ruled line. Mr. Goodyear’s irregu¬ 
larities have the appearance of sometimes being just 
these, and nothing else. 
Class VI.—Finally, there are variations which 
have the appearance of none of the above, and may 
be accepted as intentional, but on other grounds 
than workman’s habit; as, for example, when the 
Italian garden arranges a sham perspective; or when, 
to save heaven’s jealousy of a too great perfection, 
a flaw or irregularity is purposely introduced, as is 
common in Eastern art. 
Now, the above six appearances can, I think, 
comprise all Mr. Goodyear’s phenomena of refine¬ 
ment; but however much they may appear to us so to 
classify themselves, Mr. Goodyear is not satisfied. 
He claims that, if not in all the examples given in 
his collection of photographs, in the bulk of them 
the above appearances mean nothing. What is 
really exhibited is an art of irregularity, a maxima 
ars which is able celare artem, and this was the tra¬ 
ditional secret of design permeating mediaeval build¬ 
ing, but lost at or about the time of the Renaissance. 
It is recorded that when the followers of Xeno 
explained their theory that movement was impos¬ 
sible, Diogenes got out of his tub and refuted them 
by walking. But all the same the Cynic missed the 
point, which was not that men did not appear to 
walk, but that there was another way of taking the 
appearance of it. So it is no use for the cynical 
critic to point to appearances and say, “These are 
against you, Mr. Goodyear.’’ A philosopher is en¬ 
titled to discover an interpretation different from 
the obvious, and to say in any particular case that 
a refinement may have the appearance of an irregu¬ 
larity or a craft-habit, and yet be due to a definite 
system of aesthetic design. 
I aking the classes of appearances in order, Mr. 
Goodyear’s position with regard to his critics may 
be put before the reader. 
Class I.— E rrors in Me asurement, in Levelness , 
or in Squareness. —Every architect knows that the 
equalities, parallelisms, and rectangulations, which 
his dividers, tee-squares, set squares, etc., draw on 
paper so easily, are not always exactly kept in the 
executed building of modern work. It is a com¬ 
monplace to specify that stairs, cupboards, etc., must 
be made from the completed carcase and not from 
the drawings themselves. Architects, therefore, are 
accustomed to think some small inaccuracies in¬ 
evitable; but Mr. Goodyear points out that his re¬ 
finements are on too large a scale to be taken as due 
to these trivial variations. This may be so, but it 
may also be fairly urged that the exact habit of ex¬ 
treme accuracy with which we draw and set out 
budding is a modern refinement for which the an¬ 
cients had neither the taste nor any easy recipe. So 
if, despite our care and our distinct ideals of straight¬ 
ness and squareness, a bungle of these niceties is 
very general, would not such a bungle be more con¬ 
spicuous in ancient building ? Should we not ex¬ 
pect that much larger irregularity which the photo¬ 
graphs show ? Mr. Goodyear is ready for this ar¬ 
gument. “I find,” he says in effect, “a very great 
exactness of setting out in some mediaeval buildings, 
therefore when inexactness is distinct it must have 
been premeditated.” Indeed, he goes further and 
establishes for certain buildings a modulus of error, 
any excess on which must, he argues, be due 
to intention, and not to carelessness. But can a 
modulus be so determined ? Humanum est err are — 
in a very irregular way. The mason sets out six 
spaces accurately, and celebrates the event, perhaps, 
too lavishly one night, and the next morning “has 
a head” and makes a terrible break in the average of 
accuracy. In my observation of mediaeval work the 
greatest accuracy of setting out is to be found in 
the works which show in other ways the evidence 
of greatest superintendence and organization. In 
fact, the regularity is the refinement which has to be 
accounted for. 
Class II.— Settlements, etc.- —The second class of 
appearances presented in his photographs—i. e., 
those that seem to be the bulging of walls, the flat¬ 
tening of arches, and the spreading of abutments— 
give Mr. Goodyear a great deal to say. For exam¬ 
ple, as to the cloister walls at Bologna and Verona, 
which have an outward curve in plan—such as has 
an extraordinary resemblance to that produced by 
thrust, for they are on upper stories— he remarks 
that there were no vaults to produce such a thrust. 
But wood ceilings and roofs, as well as vaults, can 
push out walls in this fashion, and we are not told 
that there were neither floors nor roofs. This seems 
an omission in his argument. Again, as to the ca¬ 
thedral of Vicenza, where his photographs show piers 
that have all the appearance of having been pushed 
outwards, he remarks that the side walls of the chap¬ 
els abut the transverse vault arches, and that there¬ 
fore no outward thrust was possible. This, of 
course, is true if the said walls were built before the 
vaulting, but if between the chapels they were of a 
subsequent building by even six months later than 
193 
