Welsh Journals

been the mainspring of the Gothic Revival) treats architecture almost entirely from the point of view of the historical and other associated ideas which it evokes in the mind of the spectator. The mechanical theory on the other hand regards the promotion and expression of its material purpose as the only true function of architecture, and condemns Renaissance as inferior to Gothic architecture in constructional sincerity. The ethical critics, headed by Ruskin, profess to judge this most unfortunate of the arts upon moral grounds, and to find in the archi- tecture of the Renaissance, thus tested, merely the corrupt expression of a corrupt age; while the biological, founding their views on the scientific doctrine of evolution, have, according to Mr. Scott, given a totally false interpretation of the History of Renaissance Art. Mr. Scott shews with remarkable force and logical power the fallacy underlying these views, and then proceeds to develop his own aesthetic philosophy. Briefly speaking, this is founded on the theory first enunciated by the German Lipps, the distinguishing feature of which is the principle of empathy "-a word of which Mr. Scott, whose pure and forcible style is not the least merit of his book, carefully avoids the use. None the less, the word well expresses the substance of the theory. It is formed on the analogy of sympathy and refers to a well substantiated tendency of the human mind to feel itself into anything which it contemplates with attention-to read the material world in terms of its own experience. Thus we say that an arch springs or a steeple soars, yet both arch and steeple are stationary-it is our own mind which soars and springs in imitation of their imagined movement. According to the "empathists" then, it is the function of design in architecture and other arts to stimu- late and satisfy this energy of the human mind, which is also, in accordance with the same laws, profoundly affected by the sense of balance inherent in true proportion, by the feeling of security which results from the proper distribution and support of weights and masses, and by the sense of freedom and expan- sion produced by a skilful use of cubic space, an element which architecture, alone of all the arts, is able to employ. It is not difficult, according to this theory, to give an intelligible reason for the profound effect which works of art have upon our psychology. The feelings of balance and security satisfy in us vital instincts which are the basis of our whole physical existence, for without them we could not walk or even stand upright, while the sense of expansion satisfies an instinct even more vital which finds perhaps its most direct expression in the drawing of the breath. It is possible, no doubt, to lay too much stress on this Peculiar function of art, but there is little doubt that considerable value must be attached to it, especially in the domain of architecture. In painting and sculpture (if we exclude the abstract productions of the modern school) the material employed by the artist is significant in itself, and the importance of associated ideas is proportionately larger. But architecture, as Mr. Scott points out, works with the wholly inexpressive material of line and mass, light and shade, and the importance of the purely aesthetic value is thereby largely increased. These theories Mr. Scott devotes to the defence of the Renaissance architecture and especially to the defence of the Baroque, which was, he says, entirely founded on the recognition of the aesthetic principle in architecture. To the Baroque builder the design was everything. If blind windows, sham-marbles, and false facades could help it, he did not shrink from employing them. This was the principle of Baroque and in a lesser degree of all Renaissance building, and this, says Mr. Scott, is the standard by which it should be judged. To call it inferior to Gothic on account of its lack of romantic in- terest, or because of its constructional irrelevancy. or of the supposed corruption of the age which gave it birth, is to apply false standards. All this is no doubt perfectly true, and it is both forcibly and convincingly expressed by Mr. Scott. But the admission does not necessarily imply that the Renaissance ideal is the greatest in architecture, Mr. Scott's attempt to demonstrate the aesthetic inferiority of Gothic is brief and, it must be confessed, not very convincing. Moreover (as he to some extent recognizes) there are elements of truth in all the critical theories which he rejects, noticeably in those which he calls mechanical and ethical. The material purpose of a building is the substance upon which the artist has to work, and the nature of it must in some degree qualify his design. Directly the spectator is able to see a separation between the design and the purpose, he becomes conscious of an artistic solecism. Then, although the ethical view has been carried to absurd lengths, it has a substratum of truth. However abstract the point of view from which one may regard art, the art of a person or an age cannot help expressing directly the character of its creator. If that character is uncongenial or unworthy, so too will be the art which it produces. On these lines it is still possible to uphold Gothic in the rivalry of styles. still possible to argue the inferiority of Baroque to the other schools of the Renaissance. And we can make these comparisons all the more clearly with the assistance of Mr. Scott's most able study, which should do more than any book of recent years to put architectural criticism on a reasonable basis.