DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29898#0018
XIV
PREFACE.
in which they should be embodied ; and, in furtherance of this idea,
sixteen years ago I wrote a book entitled £ The True Principles of
Beauty in Art.’ The work was not—nor was it intended to be—
popular in its form. It was an attempt of a young author to do what
he thought right and best, Avithout consulting the wishes of the
public on the subject, and the first result, as might have been—and
indeed was—anticipated, was that no publisher would undertake it. In
consequence of this, only the first volume was published by Longmans
in 1849, ancl that at my own expense and risk. The event proved
that the booksellers were right. The book did not sell, and it became
a question whether it was worth my wliile to waste my time and
spend my money on a work which the public did not want, or Avhether
it would not be wiser to abandon it, and wait for some more favour-
able opportunity. AMrious circumstances of no public interest induced
me at the time to adopt the latter course, and I felt I could do so
without any breach of faith, as the work, as then published, was com-
plete in itself, though it had been intended to add two more volumes
to the one already published.
Some years afterwards a proposal was made to me by Mr. Murray
to utilise the materials collected for the more ambitious work in the
more popular form of a Handbook of Architecture. The work was
written in a very much more popular manner than that I had pre-
viously adopted, or than I then liked, or now think worthy of the
subject; but the result proved that it was a style much better suited
to the public demand, for this time the work was successful. Since
its publication in 1855 a large number of copies have been sold; the
work has now for some years been out of print, and a new edition is
demanded. Uncler these circumstances the question arose, whether
it would be better to republish the Handbook in its original form,
with such additions and emendations as its arrangement admitted
of, or whether it would not be better to revert to a form nearly
approaching that adopted in the £True Principles,’ rather than that
followed in the composition of the Handbook, as one more worthy of
the subject, ancl better capable of developing its importance.
The immense advantages of the historical over the topographical
method are too self-evident to require being pointed out, whenever
the object is to give a general view of the whole of such a subject as
that treated of in these volumes, or an attempt is made to trace the
connexion of the various parts to one another. If the intention is
only to describe particular styles or separate buildings, the topo-
graphical arrangement may be found more convenient: but where
PREFACE.
in which they should be embodied ; and, in furtherance of this idea,
sixteen years ago I wrote a book entitled £ The True Principles of
Beauty in Art.’ The work was not—nor was it intended to be—
popular in its form. It was an attempt of a young author to do what
he thought right and best, Avithout consulting the wishes of the
public on the subject, and the first result, as might have been—and
indeed was—anticipated, was that no publisher would undertake it. In
consequence of this, only the first volume was published by Longmans
in 1849, ancl that at my own expense and risk. The event proved
that the booksellers were right. The book did not sell, and it became
a question whether it was worth my wliile to waste my time and
spend my money on a work which the public did not want, or Avhether
it would not be wiser to abandon it, and wait for some more favour-
able opportunity. AMrious circumstances of no public interest induced
me at the time to adopt the latter course, and I felt I could do so
without any breach of faith, as the work, as then published, was com-
plete in itself, though it had been intended to add two more volumes
to the one already published.
Some years afterwards a proposal was made to me by Mr. Murray
to utilise the materials collected for the more ambitious work in the
more popular form of a Handbook of Architecture. The work was
written in a very much more popular manner than that I had pre-
viously adopted, or than I then liked, or now think worthy of the
subject; but the result proved that it was a style much better suited
to the public demand, for this time the work was successful. Since
its publication in 1855 a large number of copies have been sold; the
work has now for some years been out of print, and a new edition is
demanded. Uncler these circumstances the question arose, whether
it would be better to republish the Handbook in its original form,
with such additions and emendations as its arrangement admitted
of, or whether it would not be better to revert to a form nearly
approaching that adopted in the £True Principles,’ rather than that
followed in the composition of the Handbook, as one more worthy of
the subject, ancl better capable of developing its importance.
The immense advantages of the historical over the topographical
method are too self-evident to require being pointed out, whenever
the object is to give a general view of the whole of such a subject as
that treated of in these volumes, or an attempt is made to trace the
connexion of the various parts to one another. If the intention is
only to describe particular styles or separate buildings, the topo-
graphical arrangement may be found more convenient: but where