440 APPENDIX, 13

judgment in this matter, and the less I can trust the sentiments excited by painted glass and coloured tiles. But if there be indeed value in such things, our plain duty is to direct our strength against the superstition which has dishonoured them; since¹ there are thousands to whom they are now merely an offence, owing to their association with absurd or idolatrous ceremonies. I have but this exhortation for all who love them,-not to regulate their creeds by their taste in colours, but to hold calmly to the right, at whatever present cost to their imaginative enjoyment; sure that they will one day find in heavenly truth a brighter charm than in earthly imagery, and striving chiefly to gather stones for the eternal building, whose walls shall be salvation, and whose gates shall be praise.²

13. P. 60.-MR. FERGUSSON’S SYSTEM³

The reader may at first suppose this division of the attributes of buildings into action, voice, and beauty, to be the same division as Mr. Fergusson’s, now well known, of their merits, into technic, æsthetic, and phonetic.⁴

But there is no connection between the two systems: mine, indeed, does not profess to be a system, it is a mere arrangement of my subject, for the sake of order and convenience in its treatment; but, as far as it goes, it differs altogether from Mr. Fergusson’s, in these two following respects:-

The action of a building, that is to say its standing or consistence, depends on its good construction; and the first part of the foregoing volume has been entirely occupied with the consideration of the constructive merit of buildings: but construction is not their only technical merit. There is as much of technical merit in their expression, or in their beauty, as in their construction. There is more mechanical or technical admirableness in the stroke of the painter who covers them with fresco, than in the dexterity of the mason who cements their stones: there is just as much of what is technical in their beauty, therefore, as in their construction; and, on the other hand, there is often just as much intellect shown in their construction as there is in either their expression or decoration. Now Mr. Fergusson means by his “Phonetic” division, whatever expresses intellect: my constructive division, therefore, includes part of his phonetic; and my expressive and declarative divisions include part of his technical.

Secondly, Mr. Fergusson tries to make the same divisions fit the subjects of art, and art itself; and therefore talks of technic, æsthetic, and phonetic, arts, (or translating the Greek, of artful arts, sensitive arts, and talkative arts;) but I have nothing to do with any division of the arts, I have to deal only with the merits of buildings. As, however, I have been led into reference to Mr. Fergusson’s system, I would fain say a word or two to effect Mr. Fergusson’s extrication from it. I hope to find in him a noble ally, ready to join

¹ [Ed. 1 omits “since,” and after “thousands” adds “who might possible be benefited by them”; and in the next line omits “absurd or.”]

² [Isaish lx. 18.]

³ [In ed. 1 only. The numbering of the Appendices, however, was not changed; and in ed. 2 and subsequently there here appeared the words “13.-Mr. Fergusson’s System. (Cancelled.)”]

⁴ [See Fergusson’s Principles of Beauty in Art (1849), Introduction, ch. vi., “Classification of the Arts.”]

[Version 0.04: March 2008]