Page:Fineartasketchi01wyatgoog.djvu/83

Unfortunately, even if they existed, we have not had preserved to us in any strictly lucid shape the synthetic laws which guided the ancient Greeks in the creation of their architectural masterpieces.

But, what is more important, we have their structures; and, by a minute and studious examination of them, patient and zealous investigators like Mr Penrose and Mr Watkiss Lloyd, Mr Cockerell and Mr Wilkins have arrived at the deduction and establishment of many beautiful harmonic principles both of quantity and quality of form.

What has always done duty as an exposition of Greek theory has been derived from the writings of Vitruvius; and, valuable as what he says may be, I am bound to confess that it is, to my sense, somewhat deficient in the clearness and lucidity which are to be regarded as never wanting in the careful statements of their philosophy given to us by the Greek writers themselves.

Vitruvius commences his definition "Quod sit architectura," what architecture may be, by the following lofty definition of its functions:—"Architectura est scientia disciplinis et variis eruditionibus ornata, cujus judicio probantur omnia quæ ab ceteris artibus perficiuntur opera. Ea nascitur ex fabrica et ratiocinatione." In other words that architecture is a science adorned with many experiences of various branches of learning, by whose judgment all works are approved, executed by means of various arts. It takes its origin from building and reason.

When however Vitruvius attempts to convey the meaning of each of the Greek terms to which he alludes as designating the different branches into which the theory of the art which he so defines may be divided, he becomes so confused, as to evidence what I cannot but regard as an imperfect understanding of the very terms of which he makes use.

I have therefore endeavoured to reconstruct from his text, and with the best reason I can bring to bear upon the subject