THE

ECCLESIOLOGIST.

"Surge igitur et fac: et erit Bominus tecum."

No. LXXXVI.-OCTOBER, 1851.

(NEW SERIES, No. L.)

UPON SOME OF THE CAUSES AND POINTS OF FAILURE IN MODERN DESIGN.

A Paper read before the Twelfth Anniversary Meeting of the Ecclesiological late Cambridge Camden Society, on Thursday, May 22, 1851, by W. WHITE, Esq., Architect.

NOTWITHSTANDING all the attention that architecture has received of late years, and all the progress it has made, it must be confessed that there is still much we have not yet attained to. And though the careful study and imitation or rather adaptation of ancient models has enabled us to make some progress in the way of producing satisfactory buildings, and though we have also, as I trust, imbibed some little of the spirit which pervaded the works of our fathers and enabled them to bring all they undertook to such perfection, yet very much is still wanting; for when we inspect a modern building, how often do we say, This is not altogether what it ought to be.' And then we go on to ask" What is it that is unsatisfactory?" What is it that gives it its spiritless character ?" What is it that makes it so much less pleasing than the works of former ages?"

86

Now I often think that these questions may, on some points at least, be more readily answered, and some of our deficiencies better supplied, when certain yet unsettled points have been taken by one person or another as they may happen to strike him, and have been thoroughly sifted and worked out. Not that the mere working it out will of necessity bring the matter to a definite and satisfactory conclusion, but that there must be many things which would be generally acknowledged and accepted as axioms or fundamental rules to work upon in such a matter as architectural design, if they could but be arranged and proved by argument and illustration; as for instance (if indeed here proof be wanted the strength and durability as well as beauty of high-pitched roofs; or the comfort both in appearance and reality afforded by thick walls of any material; or again, the turning to advantage in design

some of our modern inventions of science, so far as they are in themselves really good. And I trust we may by degrees obtain some basis of definite principles and fixed rules to work upon, instead of every man having to work out for himself every point of fundamental principle; and every step in this way that can be gained is one step more towards the perfection of our art, and will help to spread amongst people a correct architectural taste, and it may be a due appreciation of other forms of beauty also.

It is on these grounds I would claim attention to the present subject of "Some of the causes and points of failure in modern design."

Now there are some points of failure which it might be thought almost superfluous to refer to; but it is necessary to introduce them, or the subject would be incomplete; besides, there may be some persons, especially if they are but beginners in the study of our art who would be glad to be introduced to a few of the first rules of criticism. The points I allude to are briefly these,-that a modern building, though it may contain some good points is at best but very faulty— 1. If any deception, or base imitation, in materials or construction, is discernible.

2. If any of the gables are set out from the face of the wall merely for the sake of making a break.

3. If any point of convenience is sacrificed for the sake of uniformity or apparent effect.

4. If the front wall be of superior workmanship to the sides or even the back of the building.

5. If the chimneys form the prominent feature.

6. If there are any blank windows.

7. If there are very large square windows in a gable; or it is adorned with meagre perforated barge-boards.

After these preliminaries we will proceed at once to such buildings as have some pretensions to correctness of design.

As architecture is the expression of an idea, so is this expression twofold, the one part consisting in the proportion and general outline of a building, the other in the minor parts and details. The one in a properly designed building almost shows at first sight the purposes and use for which it was intended (a,f). The other is entirely subordinate and is chiefly instrumental in adding grace, fulness, and harmony to the design. As the character of a building is so much more dependent on outline than on detail, it is outline which ought to claim our best energies and chiefest care; however, I fear it is detail that is snatched at by the multitude as that which characterizes it, and most specimens of "modern gothic" will abundantly prove this; but in reality it is the want of definite expression, or sufficiently distinctive character in outline, that is one great cause of failure in modern design.

In mediæval architecture (and I believe in architecture of all ages) it was not the detail but the outline that gave every building its character. Churches, monasteries, castles, houses, halls, and schools, (a,f,) different as they were from each other, and even distinguishable as such for miles, all presented nearly the same detail, (g, 1.) excepting that very

1 The letters refer to the sketches.

costly, elaborate, and rich work was mostly confined to churches, and there is generally an elegance and superiority about church-work which is seldom found in domestic remains, though deep mouldings and traceried windows were common to all. But now, a building is called "either like a church" or "too ecclesiastical," if it happens to have a traceried or even a cusped window, or almost any pointed detail whatever. The cause of this seems to have been the rapid revival of Ecclesiastical Architecture and the tardy pace at which Domestic has followed. This comparative perfection in the revival of Ecclesiastical Architecture leaves all the more to be said on the subject of domestic and religio-domestic, for in churches the points of failure have become so much more subtile, that they cannot be treated of minutely in such a general and cursory consideration of the matter as this paper pretends to. But it is not wonderful that the former should have been the first in the race, for all notions of comfort and convenience have undergone great modifications, and with them both the general arrangement and the detail and finishings of domestic buildings, whilst the church being the same from age to age varies so little in its essential requirements that a revival of churches after ancient models, forcibly and readily approves itself to most men.

Now in treating of points of failure, there is one that will be found to be well deserving of care and notice. We not unfrequently see a good design spoiled by an affectation of originality. Indeed the present age, whilst it is, on the one hand, possessed by a spirit of the most base and servile imitation, is on the other equally addicted to a contrary taste of aping at something out of the common; and I have heard it well observed that variety is now in popular estimation far too apt to take the place of beauty; variety is in itself looked upon as the measure of beauty; and the consequence of this is, that design often runs wild in absurd and unmeaning forms. Seeing then the danger and constant commission of this fault, it will be well carefully to guard against it. Not that I am one who would in any way depreciate originality and striking effects; indeed if good they are amongst our greatest achievements; but they must never be made merely for originality's sake, they must never be the object in view in a design, or they will at once become paltry and fantastical; they must be rather the result of a bold but natural treatment of certain data to which we are confined, of facing and surmounting difficulties instead of submitting to or compromising with them.

I must next make a few remarks on another point which has been so well observed upon by my friend Mr. Street in a paper on town churches in the Ecclesiologist for last December. It is horizontalism. From fear of this, many a building is deprived of any leading feature at all; for a long line of roof or wall is almost the only way of relieving the otherwise monotonous effect of a mass of broken forms: and I have often, again and again, noticed how largely horizontalism enters even into the minor parts as well as the general design in ancient buildings; indeed it is one of the very first things I observed when I began to study the principles of our art. But I was particularly struck by meeting with that interesting paper on the very day on which my attention was

called to the consideration of the same subject in another way.

This was by a letter from a brother in Bermuda (who by the way is more of a botanist than architect,) and it came to me with greater force because of all trees of the forest the cedar is my greatest favourite. He says "I cannot agree with W. G. in preferring the spruce to the cedar. I was not prepared to see the latter near so beautiful: it may be partly the association with our old one, but to my mind nothing can be more graceful than the delicate upward-pointing spray for when I came to study the philosophy of the matter, and see why the cedars give me so much actual delight, I found that the ends of all the boughs curve upwards, while the boughs themselves are horizontal; this gives to my mind that ascending impression which is always said to be the perfection of gothic architecture, and the very reason of its excellence above all other styles: however, I leave that to you to explain. I know I do feel elevated by a good cedar tree, whatever be the cause."

We now come to more definite points of failure. Most of these arise merely from inconsistencies of one kind or another, whether in arrangement, construction, material, or detail, some of which I will enumerate. 1. The fact of having a very large building involves the necessity of having every part handsomely and carefully finished, or it must look mean. This is one cause which renders a factory or a union workhouse so unsightly. Another good illustration is the adoption of the First-Pointed style of architecture for large or town churches, as has been so often done, from fancying it must be cheap. It is true that the majority of our ancient small country churches of this style are plain and perhaps comparatively inexpensive; but to carry it out on a large scale with its massive walls and deep mouldings, renders it in reality one of the most expensive.

2. It is on the other hand equally inconsistent in a small ordinary building to employ peculiarly expensive work or materials. Its effect is quite that of being out of its element-it is aiming at something beyond its proper position.

3. But it is also a great and common fault to employ fine work and expensive materials for some things, whilst poor and mean are used in other parts. It should be as nearly a uniform whole as it is possible to obtain. Again, if it is a country for bricks and tiles, slate ought not to be introduced for the roofs; the coldness of colour on the roof, contrasted with the warmth of the walls is offensive, and inharmonious with the surrounding scenery. In a district where there is nothing but rough or slaty stone, there should be no introduction of cut stone, but in very small quantities, unless it be for an expensive and highly finished building; much less should there be any imitation of cut stone. As another instance I would observe that sash windows and large panes of glass are inconsistent for cottages or small houses.

4. Again as far as practicable, the larger rooms should be upstairs and the smaller ones on the ground floor, or it is at once an offence against the principles of construction; for the floors burdened by the additional partitions must press heavily upon the walls beneath, besides which the partitions must be thin, and the building consequently noisy and rickety. Whereas by an arrangement of small rooms below,

and large ones above, great strength in construction will be gained, and effect as well.

5. Would time permit, a good deal might be said of another common fault, having rooms too high in proportion to the size and quality of the house. I know this is often done to give it an air of dignity; whereas it only gives it an air of pretension, and thus consistency again shows itself of more value than dignity alone, (compare m and n).

6. As also of a fault still more common- -the having windows high (m) instead of broad (n) in an ordinary house, offending against the rules of use, convenience, and comfort.

7. But perhaps one reason why modern buildings in mediæval styles have not been satisfactory is, that they have been much too servile imitations of ancient models, without regard to our altered habits and our many scientific acquirements. They are too much like pretty models of something old. We shall look in vain for spirit and life till we have produced such developements as shall approve themselves for their simplicity, comfort, and utility.

It is true that in this respect there must be great difficulties to contend with, nor is it reasonable to suppose all people will be alike satisfied; but until something more in that direction is done than has been yet accomplished, the vast majority of houses will be run up after the present miserable and intensely ugly fashion. Nevertheless, I am convinced we must adhere as closely as ever to the principles of design which directed the architects of the 13th and 14th centuries, if we would have strength, durability, convenience, comfort, or beauty, or would adorn our land with buildings at all suited to our climate and scenery.

I will now classify some of the buildings, and illustrate the failings that they severally present. And so doing it will be well to begin with the inferior order and thus go on to the superior.

1. Small buildings.

2. Ordinary dwelling-houses.

3. Schools and public buildings.

4. Collegiate and monastic buildings.

5. Churches.

I. In small buildings, cottages of all sorts, porter's and gardener's lodges, &c. the outline is generally too much broken up into several gables and other small forms (o). They are laden with chimney shafts towering above the ridge to a fifth or fourth part of the whole height of the building. The windows, which ought to be broad and low, are generally made square or high. But in truth a simple building of only two or three rooms, will admit only the most simple and unpretending treatment, without becoming offensive. A small building broken up into many parts is so easily measurable by the eye, (o and p) that it becomes diminutive by mere contrast with its detail; whereas a large building by the same process becomes as it were larger by showing into how many parts its length (or other dimensions) is capable of being divided. A cottage will seldom bear more than a single ridged roof, with perhaps a shed at the back or one end, and a dormered window, if necessary, and where it is really wanted,—and a low porch,