INTRODUCTION. 5 ■when looking at what is considered a fine building, instead of first examining whether it is expressive of the purpose for which it is applied, considers only whetlier it is intended to be in the Grecian, Roman, or Gothic style ; and, having determined to which of these styles it belongs, he next examines whether the details of the building are in strict conforniitv with the best practice and precedents in that style. But according to the principles we have laid down, it will be seen that the Grecian and Gothic styles are mere accident* in Architec- ture ; and are nothing more than the language which the Architect makes use of to convey his ideas. The expression of the purpose, for which every building is erected, is the first and most essential beauty; and should be obvious from its Architecture, altogether inde- pendently of any particular style; in the same manner as the reasons for things, are alto- gether independent of the language in which they are conveyed. As in literary compositions, no beauty of language can ever compensate for poverty of sense; so, in architectural compo- sition, no beauty of style can ever compensate for the want of expression of purpose. Every reasonable mind must feel this ; for, as we have said before, the foundation of all true and permanent beauty is utility. But though it is necessary to study the expression of purpose, as the first and fundamental beauty in all Architecture, it is by no means either necessary or advisable to neglect the study of style ; on the contrary, the judicious artist will take advantage of the prejudices in favour of this kind of beauty already fixed in the minds of mankind, and will emplov it, so as to co-operate with and heighten the expression of purpose ; because there are many persons who can admire the beauty of style, by whom the more simple and universal beauty of ex- pression of purpose, would neither be relished nor understood. Most authors, from Vitruvius to the present time, divide the subject of Architecture into use and decoration ; and, by decoration, it is evident that they mean what we denominate style ; though scientifically considered, style and decoration are essentially different. Any building may be decorated, by fixing on it ornamental objects of different descriptions; but for a building to be in a particular style, all its principal parts must be characteristic of that style, and must co-operate in producing one effect, or expression. Anotlier class of arcliitectural writers, Laugier, John Wood, Milizia, and especially Qua- tremere de Quincy (whose opinions have been adopted by a number of English writers, without the slightest acknowledgment), maintain, that Architecture, in so far as it is an art of taste, is to be considered an art of imiiation. According to this doctrine, the type of tlie Egyptian Architecture is a cavern; of the Chinese, a tent; of the Gothic, a grove of trees ; and of the Grecian, a rectangular hut. An opinion of this sort, adopted by such a profound metaphysical author as Quatremere de Quincy, deserves to be examined with the utmost attention. That there is truth in it, cannot be denied: man, whether in a state of barbarism or of civilisation, is alike an imitative animal ; that is, he cannot act otherwise than according to general laws, which have influenced all his predecessors from the earliest ages, and which will control all his posterity to the latest period. To say, however, that Architecture is an imitative art, hke the arts of Painting or of Sculpture ; that is " purely imitative," as Mr. Elmes calls it in his Lectures, strikes us to be by no means a correct use of language. That the more ancient of the different manners of building have had their origin in certain rude types, there is very little doubt ; at all events, this is sufficiently clear with respect to Grecian Architecture, all the principal members of which may be traced to the props and roof of a hut constructed of timber : but where is the type for the semicircular arch ? But why should a people, Uving in a country where stone was almost the only building material, be induced, by the instinct of imitation, to adopt a mode of building suited only for a material altogether different? May not a stone or mud hut serve as a model, as well as a wooden one ? If Egyptian or Indian Architecture may have had its origin in caves or excavations in the face of an upright rock, and Grecian Arcliitecture have taken its rise from a rectangular hut, why may not Gothic Architecture have had its type in the conical huts of turf and stone, or of sticks and mud, formed by the northern nations of Europe ? We think this, at all events, just as hkely to have given rise to Pointed Architecture, as a tent to that of the Chinese. The origin, however, of the different styles of art, appears to us a matter of very trifling importance. All Architecture maybe reduced essentially to two kinds; viz. that where the openings are covered with horizontal planks or blocks ; and that where they are covered with arches, either curved or pointed. Now, provided a system founded on any of these three principles be developed in a uniform, haiiuonious. and consistent manner, with reference to strength, durability, and fitness for the end in view, and to the general laws which govern all compositions of lines and forms, wiiat objection can there be to it, in any reasonable mind ? On the otiier hand, suj>i)04in;{ an Architect to fake any of the alleged
