,A'°'

Architectural TeIinements €bibitionEDINBURGH. SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER 1905

A REPLY

to the Article in "The Builder"of September 23, entitled

The Glarnour of Crooked Building"

BY

WM. HENRY GOODYEAR, M.A.CtJRATOR 0F FINE ARTS IN THE BROOKLYN MUSEUM 0F ARTS AND SCIENCES;

HONORARY MEMBER 0F THE SOCIETY 0F ARCHITECTS 0F ROME; AUTHOR0F THE "GRAMMAR 0F THE LOTUS"; "A HISTORY 0F ART"; "ROMAN

AND MEDLVAL ART"; "RENAISSANCE AND MODERN ART"; ANDVARIOUS PUBLICATIONS ON ARCHITECTURAL REFINEMENTS

PUBLISHED BY THE EXHIBITION COMMITTEE 0F THEEDINBURGH ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION

NOVEMBER X905

Document (4.I II SIBUOTHQUU1

I I I -0000005776870

En

•:-'-i• Â;-F

•':

IN publishing the accompanying letter to the President

of the Edinburgh Architectural Association, the Exhibi-

tion Cornmittee desires to place on record that its

attitude is a neutral one so far as the controversial

matter is concerned. The Comrnittee wishes only that

Mr. Goodyear, who has been its guest in Edinburgh,

should have the opportunity of making his reply aspublic as was Tke Bui/der's criticism of the EdinburghCatalogue.

A few copies of lite Catalogue cati stili be had from//m lion. Sec. of lite Exhibition, L ingiehy Wood, Esq.,122 George Street, Edinburgh,—postfree, is. 4d.

..,..

rz

:

*

-.$4

- j _z ::•

Zr

.- -_4*-*•

j

:---: --.-- ---._ u

ëZ

-f -

To z/ze Presideni of theEdinburgh A rckitecturczl Association.

"THE GLAMOUR 0F CROOKED BUILDING.

SIR,Under the above titie Tue Builder of September

23rd has reviewed xny Catalogue of the Exhibition by theEdinburgh Architectural Association of Photographs andSurveys of Medieval Buildings lent by the BrooklynMuseum of Arts and Sciences.

The Hon. Secretary to the Exhibition tells me that theEditor of The Buzider declines to publish the first instal-ments of the reply which I made in the course of myrecent lectures. I wish, therefore, to put my case beforeyour Association, and, if possible before the architecturalpublic, in another and more thorough form. I fearlesslyinvite the judgment of any impartial man upon the factscontained in the following letter.

The position of the critic is that, though he noticesthe Catalogue, he does flot care to examine theExhibition itself, and that he considers it unnecessaryfor his readers to examine it, for reasons stated inbis review. He mentions among these reasons hisfamiliarity with my previous publications and bis con-victions based upon this alleged familiarity that I haveconstructed "a laborious and fanciful twisting of facts tofit a theory which is itself improbable, and which, if

6

accepted, would only go to prove that the architects of thebuildings concerned were elaborate blunderers, who madecalculated distortions in their buildings on no principle,and which could serve no intelligible purpose.'

Personaily I have no great anxiety to change theconvictions of the reviewer, but the question to be con-sidered in the interest of architectural history is whether hehas a judicial frame of mmd, a iogical faculty, an equiprnentoflearning, and a comprehension of architectural and opticaleffects, which make Fils opinion of importance or weight on thematter under consideration. Another question is, admittingfor the sake of argument that this opinion bas importanceand weight, Are there any other opinions flot less weightyand important which are favourable to the results of theinvestigation illustrated by the Edinburgh Exhibition,and may these be balanced against this view in such amanner as to influence the judgment of an intelligentpublic?

As to the judicial frame of mmd, we may first considerthe title of the review—" The Glamour of CrookedBuilding." Under the title of "Crooked Building" isincluded the delicate and beautiful vertical curvature of thepiers at Amiens, Laon, Noyon, Châlons (Notre Darne),Strassburg, Rheims, Vicenza, and Pisa, and the suave andgraceful vertical bends of the naves of St. Mark's, andof many other buildings photographed by the BrooklynMuseum surveys in such a manner as to show these subtieunes.

Even if we concede for the moment that the argumentfor intention may be worthiess and mistaken, it surelybetrays considerable mental obliquity to stigmatise thecurves at Amiens as ' crooked building." Accidentai thesecurves might be—let it be conceded for the sake of argu-ment,—beautjful they certain]y are. The titie of the articletherefore hardly covers the ground of an investigationwhich suggests that the entasis of classic architecture bas

7

survived and deveioped into the vertical curves first quotedand found in buildings so universally admired.

Passing by the question as to the fairness or good taste0f the titie, we turn to the matter of the review with thispreamble. Since the critic believes that he is farniliarwith my publications, it is obviously unnecessary to re-hearse their arguments for bis benefit. But for theenlightenment of the architectural public, we will ask thequestion: Is he familiar with these publications? And,in reply, we shall prove that he must choose betweenadmitting that his daim w famîliarity is unfounded,or that he stands convicted as an evader and perverterof facts.

The rcview under consideration is illustrated by a largeplan of St. Mark's at Venice, borrowed and reduced (with-out permission) from the stiil larger plan of the EdinburghCatalogue.

Thé Builder says this plan is"the resuit of Mr. Goodyear'smeasurements," and shows thetg vagaries in plan which areincluded in Mr. Goodyear's illus-trations as having some specialarchitectural intention,"

The Catalogue, p. 92, says:"The ground plan itself is anaccurate reproduction, by per-mission of Commendatore Sac-cardo, of the plan preparedunder his direction for the Operaof the Basilica."

Could there be any plainer statement that this is theofficiai plan of St. Mark's, and not mine? It was borrowed,by permission, for the convenience 0f inserting plumbmeasurements dealing with vertical Unes. Only in TheBui/der's imagination is this plan Il includcd in Mr. Good-year's illustrations as having some special architecturalintention." \Vhatever may be my own opinion on thematter, no word in the Catalogue, or in any other publica-tion of mine, indicates the view that the plan is significantor deliberate in its irregularities.

8

It is a flatter for regret that anyone in the influentialposition of the reviewer in Tue Builder should profess tocriticise what he obviously has flot read; but that thisis the way in which the Edinburgh Catalogue has beenrevieweci I propose to drive home by point after point.I have shown that he cannot have iooked at thedescription of the illustration he bas selected as hisspecial ground of attack, and I shall shortiy piliory an evenmore flagrant Omission on bis part with regard to this plan.If it be objected that it seems a waste of time to deal atlengtb with a review based mereiy on blind prejudice andcareless of the facts on which it pretends to pass judgment,it must be remembered that the circulation of Tue Builderis a wide one—which is indeed the only reason for troublingat ail about the matter.

The reviewer's professed famihiarity with my publica-tions is voiced as foliows :-" \Ve bave, in fact, foilowed ailMr. Goodyear's iilustrated publications on this subject,from tirne to tinie, in American magazines, and thereforeknow pretty weil wbat lis position is." Now it should benoted that the plan of St. Mark's under discussion wasoriginaily published in Mernoirs of Art and Archceo/ogy,vol. j., No. 2 ; Tue Arc/jjiec/ura/ Rejinemenis of Si.Mark's ai ï/enice.* This memoir of in i pages, with four-teen plans and forty-four illustrations, devotes forty pagesto the discussion of the vertical unes as figured on the planwe have been deaiing with, which vas there pubiishedentire and also in thirteen sections. There is no sug-gestion in these forty pages that the obliquities of this planare Constructive refinements.

In the Edinburgh Catalogue, as in some few pages ofthe Memoir, I have explained that these obliquities inplan are frequentiy translated by photographs into an

• Pubhshed by the Macmillan Company, for the Brooklyn Museum of Arts andSciences, 1902.

appearance of obliquities in elevation, and that thespectator in the church may aiso be misled by similareffects into presuming that settiements have occurredwhich are shown by leveis taken in the galleries flot tohave happened. The "Commentary on the Obliquitiesin Plan" in the Catalogue is closed by the followingpassage :-" The above remarks will bear on the confusingopticai effects of the oblique plans previousiy described,wi/houl debaling lite point wite/her lite oblique Plan ofSI. Mark's be inlenhional or no." For the second timethe reviewer stands convicted of not having read theCatalogue, and it aiso begins to appear that bis familiaritywith my other publications is of a doubtful kind.

The Ijuilder's contention is that the obliquities inplan of St. Mark's are of such a character as to affectan argument relating to vertical unes. It says: "Thefigures all over Mr. Goodyear's plan represent in decimalsof feet the vertical leanings of wahis or piers over thesepoints; ail of which he maintains to be intentional and foropticai purposes. Now just consider the contrast betweenthis assumption and the character of the plan." To theaverage critic it wouid probabiy appear that a debateregarding defiections of plan in St. Mark's would turn onthe local surroundings, on the possible himits and form ofthe building plot, and on the locations of the wahis of theolder church which originaliy occupied a part of the samesite. Considerations of this character might have affectedthe plan of St. Mark's, and would not necessarily provethat the builders were incapable of subtlety or of dehiberaterefinements. On the other hand, a debate regardingvertical unes would turn on matters relatirig to thefoundations and to the problem of thrust or subsidence.It is surely a novel and rather amusing contention thatthe character of a plan can determine a question whichrelates to vertical lines.

due

But worse is to corne. The Builder has had theimprudence to borrow the plan and suppress the titie.

The JJui/dersays: "The figures The Titic says: "Measure-ail over Mr. Goodyear's plan ments in decimals of a foot forrepresent in decinials of feet the plurnbs from the pavement, withvertical leanings of walis or piers a une of 17 ft. in the nave, 15over these points." ft. in the transepts, and of 11.70

ft. in the north vestibule,"

The plan as published by The Builder, without theselimitations as to the length of the une, naturaily andinevitably appears to every reader to represent a seriesof plumbs for the entire height of the church.

The .Bui/der continues: "Ail The Catalogue, P . 93, Says:of which he rnaintains to be "The value and importance ofintentional and for optical pur- this record vary for différentpose." parts of the church, as subse-

quently indicated."

The Catalogue continues, "The record is supersededin severai instances by plumbs from the parapets witha une of 33 feet in length, and these plumbs will beseparately quoted. The record is supplemented in otherinstances by such measurcments as have already beenquoted for the entire height of the nave, and these arenaturaily the most important of ail."

For example, the measurernents on the plan give anextrerne divergence in the nave of 51 inches, and theinevitable conclusion of every reader of The Builder wouldbe that this is the divergence for the height of the church,whereas the Catalogue says of these sizes: "They are ail ofsmall arnount, so much so as to be inconsiderabje, exceptingfor one consideration, and that consideration is that theybelong to a system which continues above the capitals, asdescribed in the measurements already quoted for theentire height of the nave." These plumbs give a total

II

divergence in the nave of 33 inches; and this fact issuppressed by Tue Builder. The fact is also suppressedthat the director of repairs of the church, in charge forseventeen years and ernployed in making these repairsfor forty years (Commendatore Pietro Saccardo, recentlydeceased), gave a certificate in 1901 verifying this diver-gence as constructive, which certificate is published in theCatalogue.

The Catalogue says of the north and south transeptgaliery wafls: "But the wall measurements, as entered onthe plan, are taken with a une of 15 feet, whereas thesurfaces to the top of the parapet have a height of 33rcet. The measurements must therefore be doubleci onthe presumption that the leans are continuous and uniforrn,and this presumption is flot only visibly correct, but isverified by plurnbs froni the gailery, as now describecL" Thenext Catalogue number shows a photographrepresentinga plumb measurement of 15' inches inclination to the topof the gallery parapet, whereas the plan measurement,owing to the short length of une, gives only o.6o at thispoint.

As the entire argument is to the effect that the inclina-tions are of such amount as to have involved the immediatecollapse and downfall of the church if they had beenaccidentaI, the suppression of such facts is an inexcusablernisrepresentation of the argument, and is in conflict withthe very elements of conscientious reviewing. h is TheBui/der's privilege to reject the argument, but it is flotits privilege to misrepresent the case to its readers.

We return once more to the quotation already given.

7'/ie Builder says: "The i The Catalogue says: "Thefigures ail over Mr. Goodyear's evident buckiing of the casingplan represent in decimals of on the north wall (of the nave)feet the vertical leanings of walis makes the measurement in theor piers over these points ; ail va11 itself of small value, and

of which he maintajns to be those of the south wall (of theintentional and for optical pur- nave) as distinct from the en-poses." gagcd columns, have conse-

qucntly the Jack of intercstwhich attaches to any set ofmeasures without deflnitelyknown correspondences" (p. 98).

And of the west wall of thenave: "The measurements fromthe pavement vary in direction,and flot being continuous (higherup), appear to have no signi-ficance. They have bcen en-tered as part of the record"(p. 106).

The omission tœ take into account the commentai-yon "The Margin of Builder's Error in the Verticals ofSt. Mark's,' Catalogue, p. 94, is equaiiy destructive ofdaims to knowiedge of the subject or impartiality on thepart of the critic.

After such looseness of thought, carelessness of fact,and recklessness of staternent as have above been provedto the but, it is flot surprising to find an alleged quotationwhich is actuaily a direct contradiction of the words used.0f the survey of wal] arcadings at Troja, after quotingsome of the measurements,

Tue Builder says: "And this I The Catalogue says: It is "anis called 'A Symmetric scheme Asymmetric scheme in Arcades."in Arcades."

For the second time within a few months The Builderseeks to buttress its position by references to the Peter-borough façade. On the 13th of August 1904 a review inTue Builder of an Archjdec/ural Record article containedthe following sentence: "At Peterborough, as we ail know,the piers have moved more than 2 feet out of perpendicular,but the vault did flot actuaily fail in, although it was in a

'3

very precarious state before the recent restoration." ThéBuilder considered this statement a proof that a vaultingmay sprcad 2 feet without collapsing, and I answered itas foliows in the December number of the ArchitecturaiRecord, with an extract from Mr. G. L. Pearson's reporton the west front of Peterborough Cathedral, which thateminent architect repaired. This report was copied by theAmerican Arciziicci of 29th June 1895, and it says:"Careful plumbing bas determined that the detachedclustered columns (of the west front) with the part upto the string-course above them, lean out to the extentof full' two feet, and that the three gable ends have an inclin-ation in the sanie direction 0f about six juches. Uponlooking for the effect of such a divergence from the per-pendicular of these pillars upon the work inside the arcade,one is surprised to see how littie there is to indicate thatsuch a great movernent bas taken place, for, instead of hugegaps in the groining which we would have expected to see,there are only, as far as can be discerned from the ground,some slight openings in the ceils. Coupling this fact withthe fact that the three gables lean over at a less angle thanthe pillars bclow theni, and that some of the work in con-nection with these gables inside the roof is nearly perpen-dicular, I am disposed to think that the pillars began toseule and lean outward at a very early period, even perhapsbefore the gables were erected, and certainly before Megroining."

Now, if the vaulting was clone after the façade leanedout two feet, how cati Peterborough prove that a vault mayspread two feet without collapsing? So far, so good. Nowcornes the point oNnterest. The Builder, which is "familiar"wjth my publications in American magazines, cheerfullyreturns to the charge with the following passage in itsrevieW of the Edinburgh Catalogue: Il With a very slowand graduai seulement it is quite possible that an arch mayaccommodate itself to the movement to an extent which

14

would, on first consideration, hardly be expected. And wecan name one notable instance of it; that of the portico ofPeterborough. Those who saw it before the repairs * ma),remember that, in spite of the moving out of the front arcade,the contemporary vault between it and the main buildingshowed no large or noticeable rupture—nothing in theleast comparable to the extent of divergence of the arcadefrom the perpendicular. But we forget that Mr. Goodyearhas flot turned his attention to English architectural monu-ments," etc. etc. etc.

Thus once more The Builde,- illustrates its "famili-arity" with my publications, and incidentaily its ignoranceof Mr. Pearson's important document.

Let it be well noted that I have ne yer advanced anythesis about the Peterborough façade ; it is The Builderwhich citcd it as an instance proving that a vault mightflot coilapse when the wall went over two feet.

Moreover, The Bui/der's familiarity with my publica-tions is once more illustrated by the remark in regard tomy work on Engiish monuments, my negiect of which know reflects on for the second time. In an article ofAugust 131±, 1904, it suggests that I should "condescend" tostudy English Gothic. May I ask if the critic has seen thepublication on "The Margin of Builder's Error at Wells,Salisbury, Norwich, Ely, Lincoln, and Durham"? Perhapsthis is the kind of " familiarity " which breeds contempt.

So far my reply to The Builder deals with misrepre-sentations, which k must bc hoped are not deliberate, witherrors of fact and quotation in the matters consideredwhich are depiorable, and with loose statements, illogicalconclusions, and unpardonable ignorance of the publicationswhich the review has attacked.

Ail these things are quite consistent with the possibilitythat I am thoroughiy in the wrong in the conclusions drawnfrom the investigation which is described by the Catalogue

* And who did not read Mr, Pearson's Report (Note by W. 1-I. G.)

'5

and by related publications. Because Tue Builder haspublished a weak and foolish review it does flot foi]ow thatthe Edinburgh Exhibition has been a valuable contributionto the study of medizeval buildings. It simply foliows thatthe opinion of The JJui/der does flot count in the furtherdiscussion of the investigation.

I would, however, add this: Hitherto it has been im-possible to get the evidence before the architectural world.S mail plates in magazine articles are unsatisfactory at thebest, and are altogether inadequate when problems anddetails of masonry construction are involved. The expenseof publishing a large number of drawings and photographscf sufficient size has been prohibitive. In Edinburgh therehave been nearly 300 exhibits, many of them 25 " X 35", andthis is absolutely the first satisfactory presentation cf thesubject matter under discussion. The ground for argument,then, must in future be shifted to this Exhibition, and tethe forthcoming volume which is one of its results.

The vital point at issue for the moment is this: Dothe constructive experts who have seen the Exhibitionthink it is worth while for their brethren to examine it?On this head the Edinburgh and Glasgow architects willspeak for themselves. They have, in fact, already spoken,and they have spoken with remarkable unanimity. As faras the Architectural Association cf Edinburgh is concerned,they have spoken officially and denite1y to the effect thatthe Exhibition is worth examinîng. Under these circum-stances a reviewer of the Exhibition who refuses to examinek is, by virtue of that refusai, thrown out of court, and bisopinion is flot worth a fnoment's consideration.

I asked at the opening of this letter whether there wereweîghty opinions in regard to this investigation whichmight be balanced against The Builer's. I do flot pro-pose to cite even one individual, though I might cite many,as agreeing with my conclusions, but I do propose te showthat many experts and associations of experts are at one

ire

that the investigation is of such importance as to mentserious consideration. Against The Bui/der's dogmaticand supercilious contempt for the whole flatter I put thesefacts.

The Exhibition in Edinburgh has had support eitherfinancial or sympathetic from the Royal Institute ofBritish Architects, the Glasgow Institute of Architects,the Glasgow Architectural Association, the AberdeenSociety of Architects, the President of the Royal ScottishAcademy, the President of the R.I.B.A,, the Presidents ofthe Architectural Association (London), of the Leeds andYorkshire, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Car-diff Architectural Societies: from Sir Aston Webb, RA.,Professor Simpson, Professor Baldwin Brown, and a hostof intelligent laymen.

As to corroborations of my observations, the certificateof Commendatore Pietro Saccardo for the constructivefacts, as held to exist in St. Mark's at Venice, and thecertificate of the architect in charge of repairs for the PisaCathedra], have been published in the Eclinburgh Catalogue,and cover ail the facts which are held to be constructive inthese buildings. The certiflcate of the architect in chargeof S. Ambrogio at Genoa is also published in the Cataloguefor the constructive facts held to establish the existence ofa Renaissance leaning façade at Genoa. The certificateof the officiai architect of the city of Nîmes bas beenpublished, covering the constructive facts observed in theMaison Carra at Nîmes. Baron Henry de Geymuhler, thearchitectural editor of Burckhardt's Cicerone, bas avowecihis conversion to the thesis that the obliquities of thePisa Cathedral are constructive. C. J . MacCarthy, cityarchitect of Dublin, has published an il!ustrated essaywhohly favourable to my observations in Italian churchesso far as they had been made known at the date of thisessay, read before the Royal Institute of Architects ofIreland, and published in The Insu Bui/derof February ist,

'7

1899. The Dictionary of Architecture, edited for theAmerican branch of the Macmillan Company by Dr. RussellSturgis, contains an elaborate article on ' ArchitecturalRefinements," in which my name figures conspicuouslyas an authority on mediaval work. Messrs. Heins andLa Farge, who are the architects of the EpiscopalCathedral in New York (and also the officiai architectsof the State of New York), have introduced the Pisanrefinement of varying size of arches into their designs forthis cathedral. Messrs. Gordon, Tracy, and Swartwoutof New York have publicly announced their purpose ofconstructing vertical curves in the Episcopal Cathedral ofDenver. Professor Charles Eliot Norton, the Nestor ofAmerican art historians, is an avowed frierid and supporterof the investigation. As for the very numerous reviews inarchitectural journals, none have been uniformly adverseexcept those in Thc Builder. With rare exceptions, ailhave been favourable without qualification. The NewYork Evening Post and the New York Nation, which areamong the American journals of highest standing, haveneyer given the investigation an unfavourable notice.Their articles have been numerous, and are aiways writtenby experts. The leading art journal of Italy, L'A rie,reviewed the investigation in 1900 with an article of4000 words, which was favourable in every particular.The Scoisman and Glasgow Hera/d in long articles,written by architects, have welcomed the EdinburghExhibition as likely to bring about a complete revisal ofthe ordinary view of Gothic work. Personal recognitions,too, have flot been wanting, such as the Honorary Masterof Arts degree conferred on me by the University of Yaleas a testimony of its appreciation of this investigation, andan honorary rnernbership in the Society of Architects ofRome, conferred aiso in 1904. 1 am far from suggestingthat such an honour argues a universal acceptance bythe Roman architects of ail the resuits which 1 have

18

announced, but it shows that, in their opinion, I have madeimportant contributions to the study of Italian buildings.When this honour was conferred I had only five colleaguesin this rnembership, and they were the Marquis de Vogué,Rohault de Fleury, Paul Wailot, Riccardo Velasquez yBosco, Professor of Architectural History in Madrid, andGuiseppe Urioste y Velada of Madrid. The fact that theRoman Society bas litnited its honorary membership to sixnames, and that I am the only English-speaking member,is not without significance.

T here is stili something to be said in this direction.In an adverse critique of August 13th, 1904, Thel3ui/der asserted the existence of perspective illusionsin rnedioeval architecture, and even used them as anargument against the existence of the "widening refine-ment" in vertical unes. Presumably the critic did flotknow that for twenty-five years I stood alone in thecontention that perspective illusions were widespread inmediaval building. In 1870 there was one solitarymention of one single rnedival building in Europe asshowing perspective illusion. In 1874 I announced thatthese illusions were found ail over Europe. Theseillusions are recognised by Auguste Choisy and byCamille Enlart in their recent publications, and are nowaccepted even by The Builder. Strange to say, we standtogether in this most important point regarding mediva1building. I am too well aware of the isolation in which Istood for twenty-five years on this subject to mmd a littleisolation in more recent observations. Tirne will tellwhether I am in the right in other matters, as time hasalready told in the very flrst contention which I advancedfor medievai building.

We corne now to sonie few matters of detail which needclearing up in the article in The Builder. I have raisedthe question in my preamble whether the reviewer's

'9

learning and comprehension of architectural and opticaleffects make bis opinion in this matter one of weight orimportance. That he must have considerable learning isself-apparent, but it does flot follow that he is an authorityon the Greek curves. Let us examine the case in somedetail. We are told in this review that "the tendency oflong horizontal or vertical unes in architecture is to lookhollow; hence the entasis in the Greek column and thecurve upward of the Partheiion steps."

How can a vertical une look hollow? The apparentconcavity of a column is only established for columns whichhave a diminution. It has ne yer been established forcolumns with parallel sides. This point has been explainedby Thiersch in "Optische Tauschungen auf dem Gebieteder Architektur." Moreover, aij good authorities add totheir account of the entasis the statement that k does morethan correct a concavity, that the curve is visible, and wasmeant to be so. This is probably the flrst occasion, evenin would-be critical literature, in which the entasis and thehorizontal curves have been united in one explanation.The reviewer's ideas of the correction theories are ratherconfused, but let us discard his confusion of ideas andpin him to the wall on the subject of the horizontalcurves.

Did Penrose ever say that there was a tendency in longhorizontal lines to look hollow? Certainly not. Penrosesaid that the entablature looks hollow under lue gable, andwas consequently curved; that the stylobate under thegables was curved to correspond. But when Penrosecornes to the long horizontal unes on the flanks, he has notheory of correction based on the idea that a long horizontallong line looks hollow, or on any other idea. This is thereason that his gable theory has ne yer been consideredseriously by any continental expert.

Did Vitruvius ever say that there was a tendency inlong horizontal lines to look hollow?Certainly flot.

20

Vitruvius said that the podium would appear to dish if itwere flot curved upward. Ail horizontal unes and surfacesbelow the level of the eye tend to dish, and Vitruvius wasprobably speaking from the standpoint of a spectatorstanding on the piatform, and the asserted fact holdsoptically here of course. But Vitruvius indicates that theentabiatures were curved to harmonise with the stylobate.He does flot mention any optical concavity in these unesabove the level of the eye.

Who are the foremost optical authorities on the Greekcurves? Beyond debate, Thiersch and Hauck.

Did Thiersch ever say that there was a tendency oflong hollow unes to look hoilow? Certainiy flot. Otherwisehe wouId neyer have constructed bis eiaborate theory toexplain the statement of Vitruvius, the theory which againwas supplanted by the work of Guido Hauck.

Did Hauck ever say there was a tendency of longhorizontal unes to look hoilow? Certainly flot. Heexplains that the curve of ail horizontal unes above thelevel of the eye falis as it recedes, and his theory of theGreek curves move from the contention that they wereintended to accent this appearance in connectiori with thenarrowing of spaces in the coiumns next the angle ofGreek temple.

Hoffer was the first man who ever published onGreek curves. Did he say that there was a tendency ina long horizontal une to look hollow? Certainly flot.He preceded Hauck in the explanation that ail hori-zontal unes above the level of the eye optically showcurves rising towards the centre, and contended that theGreek curves were intended te, accent this curvilinearperspective.

Did Boutmy or Burnouf ever say that there was atcndency in a long horizontal une to look hollow? Certainlynot. They were the leading optical experts of France onthis subject.

21

Did Burckhardt, or Kugler, or Schnaase ever say thatthere was a tendency in a long horizontal une to lookhollow? Certainly flot. Where, then, is this statement tobe found? h does flot appear in any standard authorityon the Greek curves. The idea appears to be working itsway into some popular compendiums, and it is probably inthem that the reviewer found it. It is perhaps a shortand easy misapprehensiori of the explanations of Penroseor Vitruvius adapted to the popular comprehensionwhich thinks that every horizontal une ought to lookstraigh t.

The Builders critic thinks that the Greek curves werecorrections, and that the mediaval curves consequently doflot exist. He is privileged to this opinion, but bis off-handjauntiness in his choice of an unauthoriseci theory of correc-tion does flot give one confidence in bis standing as anoptical expert.

There is one feature of the Greek refinexnents, generailyheld to be established by the measurements and conclusionsof Penrose, which is rejected by the vriter in The Builderin the following terms :- Some minor details, such as theslight difference in the metope openings, which Penrosemeasured and figured, we have aiways declined to believein as intentional or of set purpose, because they display noguiding motive or principle, and serve no intelligible pur-pose; we can only think that Penrose, logical and clear-headed as he was, suffered to some extent from theweakness incident even to able men," etc. etc.

It is interesting that The Builder should neyer evenhave heard of the generaily accepted and thoroughlyintelligible reason for the variations of the metope spaces,but let us accept its point of view and consider the resuits.Penrose has given good reasons for fixing the margin ofbuilder's error in the Parthenon at 1/50 part of a foot (0.02)and for announcing the four-inch variations in the metopespacings as intentional. The différence of 0.02 in 101 feet

22

points out the degree of error which may have arisenfrom the inaccuracy of workmanship in the Parthenon."1f, however, The Builder is correct, the margin ofhuilder's error in the Parthenon must be four inches insomewhere about four feet. Moreover, the margin ofbuilder's error at Wells is 0.03, with two exceptionswhich risc only to o.o8. At Salisbury, the extremevariation in opposite arches of one bay 1S 0.04, andthe extreme variation in sequent bays 15 0.09. InNorwich Cathedral the margiii cf error iS 0.02, with oneexception of 0.39. At Ely, the extreme error in oppositearches is 0.22. At Lincoln, it IS 0.34. At Durham, it is0.08.

Thus the unlooked-for resuit of The Bui/der's con-tention would be to prove that the rnedicval builders ofEngland were in many cases more accurate than theGreek builders of the Parthenon. The saine resuit holdsfor rnediœval Italy, where the limit of builder's error hasbeen fixed for many churches at less than 4 inches. If,then, the reviewer is prepared to admit that mediœvalbuildings were frequently superior in accuracy to theGreek, should he flot pause before he sweeps away thesuggestion of deliberate asymmetries as unwortliy of con-sideration ?

Tue Builder says: ' There is no historical connectionbetwecn the refinements of the Greeks and those which\Ir. Goodyear daims for the medkeval and Renaissancearchitects." The Catalogue preface expressly states thatit was the Renaissance style which overthrew the mediawalrefinements. The Catalogue also specifies Renaissancesurvivals of such refinements as being of extrctne rarity.

The Builder says : ' Between the Greeks and themediœval period is an interregnum of absolute intellectualdarkness; a guif across which nothing could be handeddown." Such a statement could be penned only by some-one ignorant of what is the common property cf every

23

student of Byzantine history. It also betrays ignorance ofthe studies of the classic revival in Byzantine art and ofthe disposition of recent scholars to connect the classicalreviva', as represented by Nicolo of Pisa, with the remark-able (though littie known) Byzantine sculpture of southItaly.

Thé Builder says: " Every- The Catalogue says: Il Curvesthing is pressed into service by in elevation are extremely un-Mr. Goodyear's theory; he sees usual in medieva1 building, beingcurves everywhere." almost wholly confined to the

Pisa Cathedral and St. Mark'sat Venice, as far as known tothese surveys" (p. 35).

Thé Buzider says: "Illustra- Commendatore Pietro Sac-tion No. 174, showing the front cardo says ( p. 77 of the Cata-of the north gailery of St. Mark's, logue): "The parapets of theis labelled curve in elevation. I galleries .. are distinctlyThere is no such thing as a curved in elevation and with acurve to be scen." rising convexity."

Who is more reliable, the reviewer, possibly looking at aX 54" cut, and certainly refusing to look at a 25" X 35"

photograph, or the architect who was daily in the churchfor forty years, and who is writing a certiicate for publica-tion?

The Builder says: "There isCommcndatore Saccardo says:no evidence of intention."

"The occurrence is too uniformto be accidentai."

Thé Builder says of the Cornmendatore Saccardo,bending verticals: "St. Mark's whose surveys of the founda-is a church tumbling about tions have been published byevery way from bad founda- I3oïto and by Mothes, says:tions, and we are asked to be- "The interior piers supportinglieve that ail this is the resuit 1 the larger dornes lean inwardof forethought and contrivance." (in the downward direction),

thus considerabiy increasing thechord of the arch as compared

24

with the distance between thebases, vithout any settiement ordistortion of the arch, whichproves that they had beenoriginally built in this manner."

The architects now in chargesay that the foundations arein excellent condition and verycarefully laid, consisting of finevertical feet of massive blocksof masonry resting on piles (andflot on a mud raft, as is the casewith the Doge's Palace).

Tue Builder says: "St. Mark'sis a church tumbling about everyway from bad foundations."

The depressed vaulting over the entrance galiery is theonly one which is claimeci to have settled at the crown, andk is the only one of those spanning the nave for whichrepairs have been undertaken or are proposed. None ofthe arches supporting the domes have settled at the crown,and these are the ones to which Commendatore Saccardo'scertificate refers. The anxieties of the present architectsin charge, aside from the vaulting at the entrance, aremainly based upon some instances of shrinkage of the wailmasonry back of the casing due to the use of large quan-tities of mortar. As to the pavement, whatever may bethought of its undulations, and many of them are distinctlyaccidentai, it should be rernernbered that these undulationsare in surfaces sustaining no weight, and, for obviousreasons, not as carefuliy founded as the lines of the walisand piers which support the domes and vauitings. Theabsence of undulations in the unes of piers and walisspeaks for carefuily constructed foundationis. Until theVenetian architects in charge have announced that thechurch is suffering from bad founclations, it may be as welifor a reviewer in London to reserve bis judgment on thispoint.

25

Tue Builder says: Il Looking The Scotsman of 2nd Sep-through Mr. Goodyear's Cata- tember voices the situation cor-logue and bis comments, it seems rectiy when it says: II It is flotthat any deviation from the suggested by Mr. Goodyear thatstraight une anywhere, whether every crooked wall or everyinward or outward, is to be takenas evidence of artistic purpose;any bad setting of a plan or anybreak or irreguiarity in a plan,possibly due to some local diffi-culty in the site, is to be regardedas an instance of the adjustmentof unes for architectural effect,"

deflected column or cvery dis-crepancy of spacing in doors orwindows or arches is intentional.The suggestion made is that wehave been in the habit of attri-buting whoiiy to accident whatnow appears to be largely delibe-rate. When the two main factorsare eliminated, i.e. careiessnesseither in setting off or in con-struction and seulement, bulgingor deflection of walis or piers, orcher variations from the normalcaused by insufficient founda-tions, earthquakes, or othercauses acting through the lapse0f years, there remains a con-siderable residuum which is diffi-cuit, if not impossible, of ex-planation V on the part of thebuiiders."

And again: "But what is there "The aim was, no doubt,consistent or intelligible in the those effects which actuallymedlcy of distortions of ail kinds resuit and which ma)' be sum-which Mr. Goodyear brings marised as—(I) an avoidance ofbefore us? . . There is no hardness and monotony; (2) aprincipie whatever in them."pleasant mystification of the eye;

(3) perspective illusions resultingin an added grace or interest."

Tue Builder says : "A serieswhich looks regular, but is foundon measuring flot to be quite so,

Auguste Choisy says (vol. ii.P. 412 of his recent Histoiredel'Architecture):"D'une

26

only conveys the impression of manière générale les architectesclurnsy or careless workman- i du moyen age évitent la froideship." regularité. S'ils admittent pour

(Rather hard judgment, one l'ensemble un parti symétriquewould think, on the inter- ils savent rompre la monotoniecolumniations of the Parthenon, de ces détails qui se diversifientas measured by Penrose.)à l'infini.

Then there is the matter of the widening effect" inmediva1 verticals, which Tue Builder says would counter-act perspective, but ili this, as in other matters, I havegiven sufficient answer in the Architectural Record forDecember 1904, to which I refer anyone who thinks itworth while to follow up this controversy further. Thatmany will do so is unlikely, for I think I may daim tohave Ieft 74e Builder's case in the state in which its criticimagines St. Mark's to be—"tumbling about every wayfi-om bad foundatjons."

I am, Sir,

Yours obedient]y,

W. H. GOODYEAR.

BROOKLYN, November 1905.