FERGUSSON'S ILLUSTRATED HANDBOOK OF ARCHITECTURE a. THE public are much indebted both to the author and to the publisher of this work to the former, for the diligence with which he has collected and digested an immense mass of materials; to the latter, for the spirit and liberality with which he has illustrated them by an extraordinary number of very beautiful woodcuts, without the help of which Mr. Fergusson's labours could scarcely have been made intelligible to the general reader. It was indeed, a noble undertaking to illustrate the architecture of the whole world, by digesting an entire library of architecture into a single work of moderate dimensions. We hardly go too far in saying, that most of the best plates in the best works upon architecture that have ever been published, are here copied on a reduced scale, but large enough to be perfectly clear and distinct, and sufficient for the purpose of study. The idea of giving ground-plans of all the principal buildings in the world reduced to one scale, (100 feet to an inch,) is also an excellent one, and enables us more clearly to understand the relative proportions, and many other points which were not to be ascertained without great difficulty and long study in previous works. The works which Mr. Fergusson has previously published all relate to the architecture of Eastern countries, and this would lead us to expectwhat we find to be the case-that those countries which are in general the least known to Europeans are here most fully illustrated, and their architectural history the most clearly developed. This gives the work a novelty and freshness to the general reader. The whole of the first volume relates to what may be called the Pagan styles, including the ancient Greek and Roman, but treating with equal fulness of the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Chinese, the Egyptian, the Sassanian or Persian, and the Saracenic. The very existence of some of these styles of architecture is scarcely known to the greater part of English readers of ordinary education. The second volume relates entirely to Christian architecture, and this portion is less complete and satisfactory. Probably owing to the long residence of the author in the East, he is less familiar with the architecture of Western Europe, and is not aware of the rapid progress which has been made in its study during the last twenty years. He is either not acquainted with, or purposely ignores, the school of Rickman, such as Pugin, Whewell, Willis, Hussey, Petit, and others, the result of whose observations he could readily have obtained by only asking for them. He follows too implicitly the foreign local antiquaries, who are seldom safe guides as to the dates of the buildings they describe. Each local antiquary naturally wishes to prove the church of his own town to be the finest or the most ancient in the country, or in the world. Mr. Fergusson should have sifted their evidence, and examined their authorities more carefully than he has done, and he would thereby have saved himself from several gross blunders. Such an enthusiast as M. Blavignac, of Geneva, for instance, is a very unsafe guide for the dates of the buildings he has described; but as he is a "The Illustrated Handbook of Architecture; being a Concise and Popular Account of the Different Styles of Architecture prevailing in all Ages and Countries. By James Fergusson, M.R.I.B.A., Author of Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis restored,' &c." (London: Murray. 2 vols. 8vo., 1004 pp., with 850 Illustrations on wood.) GENT. MAG. VOL. XLVI. F very honest enthusiast, the authorities he quotes in the notes to his own work supply sufficient data for upsetting his theories, and shewing the real dates of the buildings. Mr. Fergusson may not have had the opportunity of examining the buildings themselves with the help of M. Blavignac, as we have done; but when he found that the theories of that gentleman involved him in the necessity of considering such buildings as the cathedrals of Geneva and Lausanne as belonging to the eleventh century, which to the eyes of any experienced traveller are palpably of the thirteenth, he should have learned to mistrust such a guide, and not have followed him implicitly, as he has done. Mr. Fergusson also betrays upon many occasions a prejudice against the Gothic styles and the pointed arch, which he commonly calls the broken arch! But it is time that we allowed our author to speak for himself; and though we cannot agree with all that he says, he is at least entitled to a patient hearing and our best attention. With the greater part of his preface we can cordially agree : "There are few branches of artistic or scientific research which have made such rapid and satisfactory progress during the last fifty years as those which serve to illustrate and elucidate the arts and architecture of bygone ages. Not only has an immense mass of new materials been collected, but new principles of criticism have been evolved, and studies which in the last century were the mere amusement of the amateur, and cultivated only as matters of taste, are now becoming objects of philosophical inquiry, and assuming a rank among the most important elements of historical research. Beyond this, which is perhaps the most generally attractive view of the matter, there is every reason to hope that the discovery now being made of the principles that guided architects in the production of their splendid works in former days, may ultimately enable us to equal, if not to surpass, all that has been hitherto done in architectural design. "With these inducements, added to the inherent beauty and interest which always attach themselves more or less to the objects of architectural art, the study of it ought to be one of the most useful as well as one of the most attractive which can occupy the attention of the public, and no doubt would be much more extensively cultivated, were it not for the difficulties attending its pursuit."-(p. v.) ences, and, by supplying a succinct but popular account of all the principal buildings of the world, to condense within the compass of two small volumes the essence of the information contained in the ponderous tomes composing an architectural library; and by generalizing all the styles known, and assigning to each its relative value, to enable the reader to acquire a more complete knowledge of the subject than has hitherto been attainable without deep study. Up to the present time it has been hardly possible to accomplish this, and even now very much more information is required before it can be done satisfactorily for all styles; but on comparing this work with any of the older productions of its class, it is easy to see how much progress has been made, and how much nearer we are to completeness than we ever were before."—(p. vi.) "One object that has been steadily kept in view in this work has been to shew that architecture may be efficiently illustrated by plates on a small scale, yet sufficiently clear to convey instruction to professional architects. Every pains has been taken to secure the greatest possible amount of accuracy, and in all instances the sources from which the woodcuts have been taken are indicated. Many of the illustrations are from original drawings, and of buildings never before published."-(p. x.) The Introduction is a clever sketch of the general subject, which hardly admits of extract or further condensation: there are some few passages from which we should be disposed to differ in opinion, but this would involve too long a discussion. The following, however, strikes us as a very questionable and dangerous doctrine to inculcate on a young architect: : "It is not necessary that the engineer should know anything of architecture, though it certainly would be better in most instances if he did; but, on the other hand, it is indispensably necessary that the architect should understand construction. Without that knowledge he cannot design; but it would be well if, in most instances, he could delegate the mechanical part of his task to the engineer, and so restrict himself entirely to the artistic arrangement and the ornamentation of his design. This division of labour is essential to success, and was always prac- It appears to us, that when the architect "delegates the mechanical part of his task to the engineer," he simply abdicates his office and becomes the mere decorator: if Mr. Fergusson's principle is generally believed and acted upon by his profession, as we fear is too often the case, there is no wonder that our modern architects have produced so many wretched failures, and that as a body our civil engineers are so much in advance of our architects. The proper business of the architect is to construct, and to make all ornament or decoration subsidiary and subordinate to the construction. The great fault of modern architects is that they make a pretty drawing of the exterior façade of a proposed building, and then make the internal arrangements fit in with their "design" as well as they can, often at the sacrifice of every kind of comfort, or propriety, or convenience. This is exactly the opposite of the course pursued by the ancient architects; they attended first to the requirements of the interior and the construction, and left the exterior to take care of itself; or, at least, made the appearance of it, and all ornament, entirely secondary; they ornamented what was useful, and did not build mere ornament. The section on ethnography is so good and true that we quote it entire : "It is the circumstance mentioned in the last section, of the perfectly truthful imitation of Nature in all true styles of art, that gives such a charm to the study, and raises the elaboration of these principles to the dignity of a science. It leads also to one further conclusion: when men expressed their knowledge so truthfully, they expressed also their feelings, and with their feelings their nationality. It is thus that, looking on an ancient building, we can not only tell in what state of civilization its builders lived, or how far they were advanced in the arts, but we can almost certainly say also to what race they belonged, and what their affinities were with the other races or tribes of mankind. far as my knowledge extends, I do not know a single exception to this rule; and, as far as I can judge, I believe that architecture is in all instances as correct a test So of race as language, and one far more easily applied and understood. Languages alter and become mixed, and when a change has once been established it is extremely difficult to follow it back to its origin, and unravel the elements which compose it; but a building once erected stands unchanged to testify to the time when it was built, and the feelings and motives of its builders remain stamped indelibly upon it as long as it lasts. Owing to the confusion of styles which has prevailed since the Renaissance, this branch of the subject has been little understood or followed out; but it is the characteristic which lends to the study of ancient architecture its highest value, and which, when properly understood, will elevate what has been considered as a merely instructive pastime into the dignity of an important science."-(p. lii., liii.) With Mr. Fergusson's ideas of a new style we cannot entirely agree, but there is a good deal in them deserving of consideration, especially in his preliminary remarks: "There is still one other point of view from which it is necessary to look at this question of architectural design, before any just conclusion can be arrived at regarding it. It is in fact necessary to answer two questions, nearly as often asked as those proposed at the beginning of this Introduction. Can we ever again have a new and original style of architecture?'-' Can any one invent a new style?' Reasoning from experience alone, it is easy to answer these questions. No individual has, so far as we know, ever invented a new style in any part of the world. No one can even be named who during the prevalence of a true style of art materially advanced its progress, or by his individual exertion did much to help it forward; and we may safely answer, that as this has never happened before, it is hardly probable that it will ever occur now."—(p. liii.) "In the confusion of ideas and of styles which now prevails, it is satisfactory to be able to contemplate, in the Crystal Palace at Sydenham, at least one great building carried out wholly in the principles of Gothic or of any true style of art. No material is used in it which is not the best for its purpose, no constructive expedient employed which was not absolutely essential, and it depends wholly for its effect on the arrangement of its parts and the display of its construction. So essentially is its principle the same which, as we have seen, animated Gothic architecture, that we hardly know even now how much of the design belongs to Sir Joseph Paxton, how much to the contractors, or how much to the subordinate officers employed by the Company. Here, as in a cathedral, every man was set to work in that department which it was supposed he was best qualified to superintend. There was room for every art and for every intellect, and clashing and interference were impossible." (pp. lvi., lvii.) The remainder of the first volume, or of Pagan architecture, we must on the present occasion pass over for want of space. We will only observe in passing, that Mr. George Williams and Professor Willis, in their elaborate work on the architecture of Jerusalem, are altogether at variance with Mr. Fergusson respecting the Temple. The second volume commences with the Romanesque style. We cannot help expressing our regret that Mr. Fergusson has used this term in a different sense from that which has been commonly applied to it for the last twenty years it had become appropriated to the imitations of the Roman style in the eleventh and twelfth centuries; Mr. Fergusson applies it to the later Roman buildings: "The first chapter in this history must necessarily be devoted to the Romanesque, or debased Roman-the first form which Christian architecture took on emancipating itself entirely from Pagan influence.” It is true that the word might originally have been equally applicable to either of these classes of buildings, or might include them both; but when we have it established and in common use for buildings of one period, it is needlessly puzzling to use the same term in a technical sense for another group of buildings some hundred years earlier. Nor does Mr. Fergusson's essay on Nomenclature reconcile us to his own practice. His proposal to distinguish the different styles of English architecture by dynastic names entirely, appears to us to add one more puzzle as a stumbling-block for the tyro. The French mode of using the dates only, distinguishing the styles. by centuries, is perhaps, after all, the most simple and easy. Only, as the change of style began soon after the middle of each century, this division is apt to mislead: the last twenty years of each century belong in style to the century following. Mr. Fergusson's remark, that the reigns of "the three Richards by a singular coincidence mark three ages of transition," is worthy of notice; and the observation is perhaps sufficiently near the truth to make it useful to assist the memory, although the change of style did not take place exclusively in those reigns. The first change began in the time of Henry II., the second change began in the latter part of Henry III., and the third in the latter part of Edward III. Still the remark is a happy one, and more accurate than such coincidences usually are. Mr. Fergusson seems particularly fond of applying new senses to terms of longestablished usage in a different sense: having given his own meaning to |