<h3><SPAN name="chap_2"></SPAN>CHAPTER II.</h3>
<h5>THE VIRTUES OF ARCHITECTURE.</h5>
<p><span class="scs">I</span>. <span class="sc">We</span> address ourselves, then, first to the task of determining
some law of right which we may apply to the architecture
of all the world and of all time; and by help of which,
and judgment according to which, we may easily pronounce
whether a building is good or noble, as, by applying a plumb-line,
whether it be perpendicular.</p>
<p>The first question will of course <span class="correction" title="originally be,">be:</span> What are the possible
Virtues of architecture?</p>
<p>In the main, we require from buildings, as from men, two
kinds of goodness: first, the doing their practical duty well:
then that they be graceful and pleasing in doing it; which
last is itself another form of duty.</p>
<p>Then the practical duty divides itself into two branches,—acting
and talking:—acting, as to defend us from weather or
violence; talking, as the duty of monuments or tombs, to
record facts and express feelings; or of churches, temples,
public edifices, treated as books of history, to tell such history
clearly and forcibly.</p>
<p>We have thus, altogether, three great branches of architectural
virtue, and we require of any building,—</p>
<p class="negind">1. That it act well, and do the things it was intended to do
in the best way.</p>
<p class="negind">2. That it speak well, and say the things it was intended to
say in the best words.</p>
<p class="negind">3. That it look well, and please us by its presence, whatever
it has to do or say.<SPAN name="FnAnchor_28" href="#Footnote_28"><span class="sp">28</span></SPAN></p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page037"></SPAN>37</span></p>
<p><span class="scs">II</span>. Now, as regards the second of these virtues, it is evident
that we can establish no general laws. First, because it
is not a virtue required in all buildings; there are some which
are only for covert or defence, and from which we ask no conversation.
Secondly, because there are countless methods of
expression, some conventional, some natural: each conventional
mode has its own alphabet, which evidently can be no
subject of general laws. Every natural mode is instinctively
employed and instinctively understood, wherever there is true
feeling; and this instinct is above law. The choice of conventional
methods depends on circumstances out of calculation,
and that of natural methods on sensations out of control;
so that we can only say that the choice is right, when we feel
that the means are effective; and we cannot always say that
it is wrong when they are not so.</p>
<p>A building which recorded the Bible history by means of a
series of sculptural pictures, would be perfectly useless to a
person unacquainted with the Bible beforehand; on the other
hand, the text of the Old and New Testaments might be
written on its walls, and yet the building be a very inconvenient
kind of book, not so useful as if it had been adorned
with intelligible and vivid sculpture. So, again, the power of
exciting emotion must vary or vanish, as the spectator becomes
thoughtless or cold; and the building may be often
blamed for what is the fault of its critic, or endowed with a
charm which is of its spectator’s creation. It is not, therefore,
possible to make expressional character any fair criterion of
excellence in buildings, until we can fully place ourselves in
the position of those to whom their expression was originally
addressed, and until we are certain that we understand every
symbol, and are capable of being touched by every association
which its builders employed as letters of their language. I
shall continually endeavor to put the reader into such sympathetic
temper, when I ask for his judgment of a building;
and in every work I may bring before him I shall point out,
as far as I am able, whatever is peculiar in its expression; nay,
I must even depend on such peculiarities for much of my best
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page038"></SPAN>38</span>
evidence respecting the character of the builders. But I cannot
legalize the judgment for which I plead, nor insist upon it
if it be refused. I can neither force the reader to feel this
architectural rhetoric, nor compel him to confess that the
rhetoric is powerful, if it have produced no impression on his
own mind.</p>
<p><span class="scs">III</span>. I leave, therefore, the expression of buildings for incidental
notice only. But their other two virtues are proper
subjects of law,—their performance of their common and
necessary work, and their conformity with universal and
divine canons of loveliness: respecting these there can be no
doubt, no ambiguity. I would have the reader discern them
so quickly that, as he passes along a street, he may, by a glance
of the eye, distinguish the noble from the ignoble work. He
can do this, if he permit free play to his natural instincts;
and all that I have to do for him is to remove from those
instincts the artificial restraints which prevent their action,
and to encourage them to an unaffected and unbiassed choice
between right and wrong.</p>
<p><span class="scs">IV</span>. We have, then, two qualities of buildings for subjects
of separate inquiry: their action, and aspect, and the sources
of virtue in both; that is to say, Strength and Beauty, both
of these being less admired in themselves, than as testifying
the intelligence or imagination of the builder.</p>
<p>For we have a worthier way of looking at human than at
divine architecture: much of the value both of construction
and decoration, in the edifices of men, depends upon our
being led by the thing produced or adorned, to some contemplation
of the powers of mind concerned in its creation or
adornment. We are not so led by divine work, but are content
to rest in the contemplation of the thing created. I wish
the reader to note this especially: we take pleasure, or <i>should</i>
take pleasure, in architectural construction altogether as the
manifestation of an admirable human intelligence; it is not
the strength, not the size, not the finish of the work which
we are to venerate: rocks are always stronger, mountains
always larger, all natural objects more finished; but it is the
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page039"></SPAN>39</span>
intelligence and resolution of man in overcoming physical
difficulty which are to be the source of our pleasure and subject
of our praise. And again, in decoration or beauty, it is
less the actual loveliness of the thing produced, than the
choice and invention concerned in the production, which are
to delight us; the love and the thoughts of the workman more
than his work: his work must always be imperfect, but his
thoughts and affections may be true and deep.</p>
<p><span class="scs">V</span>. This origin of our pleasure in architecture I must insist
upon at somewhat greater length, for I would fain do away
with some of the ungrateful coldness which we show towards
the good builders of old time. In no art is there closer connection
between our delight in the work, and our admiration
of the workman’s mind, than in architecture, and yet we rarely
ask for a builder’s name. The patron at whose cost, the monk
through whose dreaming, the foundation was laid, we remember
occasionally; never the man who verily did the work.
Did the reader ever hear of William of Sens as having had
anything to do with Canterbury Cathedral? or of Pietro
Basegio as in anywise connected with the Ducal Palace of
Venice? There is much ingratitude and injustice in this;
and therefore I desire my reader to observe carefully how
much of his pleasure in building is derived, or should be
derived, from admiration of the intellect of men whose names
he knows not.</p>
<p><span class="scs">VI</span>. The two virtues of architecture which we can justly
weigh, are, we said, its strength or good construction, and its
beauty or good decoration. Consider first, therefore, what
you mean when you say a building is well constructed or well
built; you do not merely mean that it answers its purpose,—this
is much, and many modern buildings fail of this much;
but if it be verily well built, it must answer this purpose in
the simplest way, and with no over-expenditure of means.
We require of a light-house, for instance, that it shall stand
firm and carry a light; if it do not this, assuredly it has been
ill built; but it may do it to the end of time, and yet not be
well built. It may have hundreds of tons of stone in it more
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page040"></SPAN>40</span>
than were needed, and have cost thousands of pounds more
than it ought. To pronounce it well or ill built, we must
know the utmost forces it can have to resist, and the best
arrangements of stone for encountering them, and the quickest
ways of effecting such arrangements: then only, so far as such
arrangements have been chosen, and such methods used, is it
well built. Then the knowledge of all difficulties to be met,
and of all means of meeting them, and the quick and true
fancy or invention of the modes of applying the means to the
end, are what we have to admire in the builder, even as he is
seen through this first or inferior part of his work. Mental
power, observe: not muscular nor mechanical, nor technical,
nor empirical,—pure, precious, majestic, massy intellect; not
to be had at vulgar price, nor received without thanks, and
without asking from whom.</p>
<p><span class="scs">VII</span>. Suppose, for instance, we are present at the building
of a bridge: the bricklayers or masons have had their centring
erected for them, and that centring was put together
by a carpenter, who had the line of its curve traced for him
by the architect: the masons are dexterously handling and
fitting their bricks, or, by the help of machinery, carefully
adjusting stones which are numbered for their places. There
is probably in their quickness of eye and readiness of hand
something admirable; but this is not what I ask the reader
to admire: not the carpentering, nor the bricklaying, nor
anything that he can presently see and understand, but the
choice of the curve, and the shaping of the numbered stones,
and the appointment of that number; there were many things
to be known and thought upon before these were decided.
The man who chose the curve and numbered the stones, had
to know the times and tides of the river, and the strength of
its floods, and the height and flow of them, and the soil of the
banks, and the endurance of it, and the weight of the stones
he had to build with, and the kind of traffic that day by day
would be carried on over his bridge,—all this specially, and all
the great general laws of force and weight, and their working;
and in the choice of the curve and numbering of stones are
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page041"></SPAN>41</span>
expressed not only his knowledge of these, but such ingenuity
and firmness as he had, in applying special means to overcome
the special difficulties about his bridge. There is no saying
how much wit, how much depth of thought, how much fancy,
presence of mind, courage, and fixed resolution there may
have gone to the placing of a single stone of it. This is what
we have to admire,—this grand power and heart of man in
the thing; not his technical or empirical way of holding the
trowel and laying mortar.</p>
<p><span class="scs">VIII</span>. Now there is in everything properly called art this
concernment of the intellect, even in the province of the art
which seems merely practical. For observe: in this bridge-building
I suppose no reference to architectural principles;
all that I suppose we want is to get safely over the river; the
man who has taken us over is still a mere bridge-builder,—a
<i>builder</i>, not an architect: he may be a rough, artless, feelingless
man, incapable of doing any one truly fine thing all his
days. I shall call upon you to despise him presently in a sort,
but not as if he were a mere smoother of mortar; perhaps a
great man, infinite in memory, indefatigable in labor, exhaustless
in expedient, unsurpassable in quickness of thought.
Take good heed you understand him before you despise him.</p>
<p><span class="scs">IX</span>. But why is he to be in anywise despised? By no
means despise him, unless he happen to be without a soul,<SPAN name="FnAnchor_29" href="#Footnote_29"><span class="sp">29</span></SPAN>
or at least to show no signs of it; which possibly he may not
in merely carrying you across the river. He may be merely
what Mr. Carlyle rightly calls a human beaver after all; and
there may be nothing in all that ingenuity of his greater than
a complication of animal faculties, an intricate bestiality,—nest
or hive building in its highest development. You need something
more than this, or the man is despicable; you need that
virtue of building through which he may show his affections
and delights; you need its beauty or decoration.</p>
<p><span class="scs">X</span>. Not that, in reality, one division of the man is more
human than another. Theologists fall into this error very
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page042"></SPAN>42</span>
fatally and continually; and a man from whom I have learned
much, Lord Lindsay, has hurt his noble book by it, speaking
as if the spirit of the man only were immortal, and were
opposed to his intellect, and the latter to the senses; whereas
all the divisions of humanity are noble or brutal, immortal or
mortal, according to the degree of their sanctification; and
there is no part of the man which is not immortal and divine
when it is once given to God, and no part of him which is
not mortal by the second death, and brutal before the first,
when it is withdrawn from God. For to what shall we trust
for our distinction from the beasts that perish? To our
higher intellect?—yet are we not bidden to be wise as the
serpent, and to consider the ways of the ant?—or to our
affections? nay; these are more shared by the lower animals
than our intelligence. Hamlet leaps into the grave of his
beloved, and leaves it,—a dog had stayed. Humanity and
immortality consist neither in reason, nor in love; not in the
body, nor in the animation of the heart of it, nor in the
thoughts and stirrings of the brain of it,—but in the dedication
of them all to Him who will raise them up at the last
day.</p>
<p><span class="scs correction" title="corrected from XL">XI</span>. It is not, therefore, that the signs of his affections,
which man leaves upon his work, are indeed more ennobling
than the signs of his intelligence; but it is the balance of
both whose expression we need, and the signs of the government
of them all by Conscience; and Discretion, the daughter
of Conscience. So, then, the intelligent part of man being
eminently, if not chiefly, displayed in the structure of his
work, his affectionate part is to be shown in its decoration;
and, that decoration may be indeed lovely, two things are
needed: first, that the affections be vivid, and honestly shown;
secondly, that they be fixed on the right things.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XII</span>. You think, perhaps, I have put the requirements in
wrong order. Logically I have; practically I have not: for
it is necessary first to teach men to speak out, and say what
they like, truly; and, in the second place, to teach them
which of their likings are ill set, and which justly. If a man
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page043"></SPAN>43</span>
is cold in his likings and dislikings, or if he will not tell you
what he likes, you can make nothing of him. Only get him
to feel quickly and to speak plainly, and you may set him
right. And the fact is, that the great evil of all recent
architectural effort has not been that men liked wrong things:
but that they either cared nothing about any, or pretended
to like what they did not. Do you suppose that any modern
architect likes what he builds, or enjoys it? Not in the least.
He builds it because he has been told that such and such
things are fine, and that he <i>should</i> like them. He pretends
to like them, and gives them a false relish of vanity. Do you
seriously imagine, reader, that any living soul in London likes
triglyphs?<SPAN name="FnAnchor_30" href="#Footnote_30"><span class="sp">30</span></SPAN>—or gets any hearty enjoyment out of pediments?<SPAN name="FnAnchor_31" href="#Footnote_31"><span class="sp">31</span></SPAN>
You are much mistaken. Greeks did: English
people never did,—never will. Do you fancy that the architect
of old Burlington Mews, in Regent Street, had any
particular satisfaction in putting the blank triangle over the
archway, instead of a useful garret window? By no manner
of means. He had been told it was right to do so, and
thought he should be admired for doing it. Very few faults
of architecture are mistakes of honest choice: they are almost
always hypocrisies.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XIII</span>. So, then, the first thing we have to ask of the decoration
is that it should indicate strong liking, and that
honestly. It matters not so much what the thing is, as that
the builder should really love it and enjoy it, and say so
plainly. The architect of Bourges Cathedral liked hawthorns;
so he has covered his porch with hawthorn,—it is a perfect
Niobe of May. Never was such hawthorn; you would try
to gather it forthwith, but for fear of being pricked. The
old Lombard architects liked hunting; so they covered their
work with horses and hounds, and men blowing trumpets two
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page044"></SPAN>44</span>
yards long. The base Renaissance architects of Venice liked
masquing and fiddling; so they covered their work with
comic masks and musical instruments. Even that was better
than our English way of liking nothing, and professing to like
triglyphs.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XIV</span>. But the second requirement in decoration, is a sign
of our liking the right thing. And the right thing to be liked
is God’s work, which He made for our delight and contentment
in this world. And all noble ornamentation is the expression
of man’s delight in God’s work.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XV</span>. So, then, these are the two virtues of building: first,
the signs of man’s own good work; secondly, the expression
of man’s delight in better work than his own. And these are
the two virtues of which I desire my reader to be able quickly
to judge, at least in some measure; to have a definite opinion
up to a certain point. Beyond a certain point he cannot form
one. When the science of the building is great, great science
is of course required to comprehend it; and, therefore, of difficult
bridges, and light-houses, and harbor walls, and river
dykes, and railway tunnels, no judgment may be rapidly
formed. But of common buildings, built in common circumstances,
it is very possible for every man, or woman, or child,
to form judgment both rational and rapid. Their necessary,
or even possible, features are but few; the laws of their construction
are as simple as they are interesting. The labor of
a few hours is enough to render the reader master of their
main points; and from that moment he will find in himself a
power of judgment which can neither be escaped nor deceived,
and discover subjects of interest where everything before had
appeared barren. For though the laws are few and simple,
the modes of obedience to them are not so. Every building
presents its own requirements and difficulties; and every good
building has peculiar appliances or contrivances to meet them.
Understand the laws of structure, and you will feel the special
difficulty in every new building which you approach; and you
will know also, or feel instinctively,<SPAN name="FnAnchor_32" href="#Footnote_32"><span class="sp">32</span></SPAN> whether it has been
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page045"></SPAN>45</span>
wisely met or otherwise. And an enormous number of buildings,
and of styles of buildings, you will be able to cast aside
at once, as at variance with these constant laws of structure,
and therefore unnatural and monstrous.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XVI</span>. Then, as regards decoration, I want you only to
consult your own natural choice and liking. There is a right
and wrong in it; but you will assuredly like the right if you
suffer your natural instinct to lead you. Half the evil in this
world comes from people not knowing what they do like, not
deliberately setting themselves to find out what they really
enjoy. All people enjoy giving away money, for instance:
they don’t know <i>that</i>,—they rather think they like keeping it;
and they <i>do</i> keep it under this false impression, often to their
great discomfort. Every body likes to do good; but not one
in a hundred finds <i>this</i> out. Multitudes think they like to do
evil; yet no man ever really enjoyed doing evil since God
made the world.</p>
<p>So in this lesser matter of ornament. It needs some little
care to try experiments upon yourself: it needs deliberate
question and upright answer. But there is no difficulty to be
overcome, no abstruse reasoning to be gone into; only a little
watchfulness needed, and thoughtfulness, and so much honesty
as will enable you to confess to yourself and to all men, that
you enjoy things, though great authorities say you should not.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XVII</span>. This looks somewhat like pride; but it is true humility,
a trust that you have been so created as to enjoy what
is fitting for you, and a willingness to be pleased, as it was
intended you should be. It is the child’s spirit, which we are
then most happy when we most recover; only wiser than
children in that we are ready to think it subject of thankfulness
that we can still be pleased with a fair color or a dancing
light. And, above all, do not try to make all these pleasures
reasonable, nor to connect the delight which you take in ornament
with that which you take in construction or usefulness.
They have no connection; and every effort that you make to
reason from one to the other will blunt your sense of beauty,
or confuse it with sensations altogether inferior to it. You
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page046"></SPAN>46</span>
were made for enjoyment, and the world was filled with things
which you will enjoy, unless you are too proud to be pleased
by them, or too grasping to care for what you cannot turn to
other account than mere delight. Remember that the most
beautiful things in the world are the most useless; peacocks
and lilies for instance; at least I suppose this quill I hold in
my hand writes better than a peacock’s would, and the peasants
of Vevay, whose fields in spring time are as white with
lilies as the Dent du Midi is with its snow, told me the hay
was none the better for them.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XVIII</span>. Our task therefore divides itself into two branches,
and these I shall follow in succession. I shall first consider
the construction of buildings, dividing them into their really
necessary members or features; and I shall endeavor so to
lead the reader forward from the foundation upwards, as that
he may find out for himself the best way of doing everything,
and having so discovered it, never forget it. I shall give him
stones, and bricks, and straw, chisels, and trowels, and the
ground, and then ask him to build; only helping him, as I can,
if I find him puzzled. And when he has built his house or
church, I shall ask him to ornament it, and leave it to him to
choose the ornaments as I did to find out the construction: I
shall use no influence with him whatever, except to counteract
previous prejudices, and leave him, as far as may be, free.
And when he has thus found out how to build, and chosen his
forms of decoration, I shall do what I can to confirm his confidence
in what he has done. I shall assure him that no one
in the world could, so far, have done better, and require him
to condemn, as futile or fallacious, whatever has no resemblance
to his own performances.</p>
<hr class="foot" />
<div class="note">
<p><SPAN name="Footnote_28" href="#FnAnchor_28"><span class="fn">28</span></SPAN> <SPAN href="#app_13">Appendix 13</SPAN>, “Mr. Fergusson’s System.”</p>
<p><SPAN name="Footnote_29" href="#FnAnchor_29"><span class="fn">29</span></SPAN> <SPAN href="#app_14">Appendix 14</SPAN>, “Divisions of Humanity.”</p>
<p><SPAN name="Footnote_30" href="#FnAnchor_30"><span class="fn">30</span></SPAN> Triglyph. Literally, “Three Cut.” The awkward upright ornament
with two notches in it, and a cut at each side, to be seen everywhere at the
tops of Doric colonnades, ancient and modern.</p>
<p><SPAN name="Footnote_31" href="#FnAnchor_31"><span class="fn">31</span></SPAN> Pediment. The triangular space above Greek <span class="correction" title="originally porticos">porticoes</span>, as on the
Mansion House or Royal Exchange.</p>
<p><SPAN name="Footnote_32" href="#FnAnchor_32"><span class="fn">32</span></SPAN> <SPAN href="#app_15">Appendix 15</SPAN>: “Instinctive Judgments.”</p>
</div>
<hr class="art" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page047"></SPAN>47</span></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />