APPENDIX, 17 455

churches and noble dwelling-houses; and for every stunted Grecism and stucco Romanism, into which they are now forced to shape their palsied thoughts, and to whose crumbling plagiarisms they must trust their doubtful fame, they would be asked to raise whole streets of bold, and rich, and living architecture, with the certainty in their hearts of doing what was honourable to themselves, and good for all men.

Before I altogether leave the question of the influence of labour on architectural effect, the reader may expect from me a word or two respecting the subject which is every year becoming of greater interest-the applicability, namely, of glass and iron to architecture in general, as in some sort exemplified by the Crystal Palace.¹

It is thought by many that we shall forthwith have great part of our architecture in glass and iron, and that new forms of beauty will result from the studied employment of these materials.

It may be told in few words how far this is possible; how far eternally impossible.

There are two means of delight in all productions of art-colour and form.

The most vivid conditions of colour attainable by human art are those of works in glass and enamel, but not the most perfect. The best and noblest colouring possible to art is that attained by the touch of the human hand on an opaque surface, upon which it can command any tint required, without subjection to alteration by fire or other mechanical means. No colour is so noble as the colour of a good painting on canvas or gesso.

This kind of colour being, however, impossible, for the most part, in architecture, the next best is the scientific disposition of the natural colours of stones, which are far nobler than any abstract hues producible by human art.

The delight which we receive from glass painting is one altogether inferior, and in which we should degrade ourselves by over indulgence. Nevertheless, it is possible that we may raise some palaces like Aladdin’s with coloured glass for jewels, which shall be new in the annals of human splendour, and good in their places; but not if they superseded nobler lustre.²

Now, colour is producible either on opaque or in transparent bodies: but form is only expressible, in its perfection, on opaque bodies, without lustre.

This law is imperative, universal, irrevocable. No perfect or refined form can be expressed except in opaque and lustreless matter. You cannot see the form of a jewel, nor, in any perfection, even of a cameo or bronze. You cannot perfectly see the form of a humming-bird, on account of its burnishing; but you can see the form of a swan perfectly. No noble work in form can ever, therefore, be produced in transparent or lustrous glass or enamel. All noble architecture depends for its majesty on its form: therefore you can never have any noble architecture in transparent or lustrous glass or enamel. Iron is, however, opaque; and both it and opaque enamel may, perhaps, be rendered quite lustreless; and, therefore, fit to receive noble form.

Let this be thoroughly done, and both the iron and enamel made fine in paste or grain, and you may have an architecture as noble as cast or

¹ [Three years later when the Crystal Palace was re-opened at Sydenham, Ruskin brought out a pamphlet-The Opening of the Crystal Palace Considered in some of its Relations to the Progress of Art; in this he further develops some of the points here noted: see Vol. XII.]

² [Ed. 1 reads “edifices” for “lustre.”]

[Version 0.04: March 2008]