As to "the noblest building" being "that which discovers the secrets of its structure," it may be permitted the most scrupulous amongst us to remember that that noblest of all material fabrics, the human body, does not discover, but, on the contrary, conceals its structural peculiarities. As regards other fabrics, we may just reverse the aphorism, and say, as a general rule, that, in exact proportion as you approach the aesthetic and the expressive-in proportion, that is, as you have not to do with a piece of machinery-in the same precise proportion should you rather conceal, disguise, lose sight of, than suggest, the mere necessaries of construction, and leave your building to tell of better things.

But we touch here one of the many points at which what I mean by " Pre-Raffaellitism," goes to the extinguishment of what we all mean by a "fine art."

I need inform no reader of the "Seven Lamps" that their ingenious author does not intend the consequences. This does not affect the issue. "Irrefragable rules of right" cannot bend and twist at the beck of convenience or personal humour. For instance, we read

"I see not how we can help allowing Brunelleschi his iron chain round the dome of Florence; but we must find a rule that will enable us to stop somewhere. This rule is, I think, that metals may be used as a cement, but not as a support." (Lamp of Truth, p. 37. of second edition.)

Now is this a rightful treatment of rules of right? What mean we by "structural deceit," but "the

"RULES OF RIGHT

INFLEXIBLE.

269

suggesting a mode of stability" other than the true one? What is the suggested construction of this far-famed dome, but its being supported in mid-air by the scientific employment of solid masonry? Whisper that the whole would tumble to pieces if you did but cut an invisible girdle; and what would be the reply of Mr. Ruskin's irrefragable right? But we cannot help allowing" it. Why not? Because the dome would not stand without it. What need, then, for the dome to stand at all, if it can only stand on a structural lie? This is just the sum of the whole matter. "Do not let us lie at all."

"

As for the intelligent eye," we cannot adjust rules of architectural truthfulness by the supposed intelligence or simplicity of the bystanders. Architecture does not profess to speak to architects. You must have one broad rule for gentle and simple, or you are not "commanding an honest architecture." Either give structural carte blanche, "asking no question for conscience sake," or allow no such thing as suggesting, concealing, or otherwise playing with stern realities.

Of the duty of observing architectural morality, I have, of course, no more doubt than as regards morality of any other kind. The question is, what is architectural morality?-a question I must reserve to another Chapter.

CHAP. XXIV.

ARCHITECTURAL MORALS, IN THE LIGHT OF PRINCIPLES.

It is some relief, whilst continuing our colloquy with Pre-Raffaellitism, to escape, though but for a moment, a direct personal conflict. I said that the "leading journal" had begun to swell the chorus: here is the passage referred to; it relates immediately to Regent and Oxford Streets:

"But a worse fault is the falsehood of all the decoration. It is all paint and plaster; below are good bricks. Compare the fronts of these houses with the backs: the front is all smiles and hypocrisy - the back tells the ugly truth that the greatness is got up for show.” (Times for Dec. 26. 1855.)

There is no mistaking the relationship, though there may be the authorship of this passage; nor can I hesitate to join issue with the principle it proceeds on.

That consistency is an architectural virtue, and that there is a positive beauty in intrinsicalness, is not disputed. Whether the streets, here referred to, are, in these respects, in good taste, is not my question. It may be simply preposterous to build rows of shops like rows of palaces: or it may

LEGITIMATE ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE. 271

be that such building is but an exhibition of our national character—a telling all whom it concerns that we have brought society to a state of fusion ; that we make a glory of our trade and commerce. On these matters I make no assertion: still less shall I attempt to extenuate such enormities as ponderous columns reared on panes of glass. I address myself exclusively to the principle of the passage.

Now every one knows that truth and falsehood are not in verbal expressions, but in what is intended to be understood by them. Micaiah said to Ahab, "Go, and prosper;" yet Ahab was not deceived, nor was Micaiah a lying prophet. Is there deception in the case before us? Did the builder employ brick and charge for stone? Does the spectator believe in stone? was it meant that he should do so when he looks on brick? If neither, where is the falsehood?

But let us go a little further. Irrespective of deceptive falsehood, is there immorality of any kind in concealing" the ugly truth?" in covering the inferior with a more agreeable or becoming material? If so, then, how did Solomon overlay with gold “ the altar, which was of cedar," and " the cherubim,” which were of "olive-tree;" and even "the floor," which was, as we should say, of deal?

There is a further word about "front and back." Is this also a criminal question? Is there to be no longer distinction between "comely and uncomely parts?" It needs no words to show how much of the interests of architecture is in the answer.

But what a requirement! How would either of

the inmates of those houses be astonished were he denied the liberty of distinguishing between the every-day "parlour" and the more sumptuous "drawing-room;" or his blushing partner challenged, on her way to an evening party, with having beneath that specious velvet, some such ugly fact as a flannel petticoat?

I am not trifling with serious questions. Go again to that stateliest fabric before referred to. "Your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost." By what economy are their vital processes concealed even from our own observance? Shall we call that fair skin a deceitful mask?

And I am not quite sure that it is art alone that is in jeopardy. I will not go into homilies: we have proof enough in human experience that scrupulosity may damage conscience, as superstition may destroy true godliness. There is something more than accidental acquaintanceship between the straining at the "gnat," and the swallowing the "camel."

We have, in sooth, battles enough to fight without invoking thunderbolts on moles and cobwebs. Still less need we call on architecture to assume the name of "Christian," and then turn false witness against its neighbour. Poor Pugin allowed himself a seeming triumph I hope he lived to repent of. There is an exhibition of the dome of St. Paul's that disgraces his "True Principles of Christian Architecture," of which I trace the influence in the article before us; and which, as a sample of other things, it is time to strip of authority it is not entitled to. That there may be no misconception, I give here, as in