DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29898#0081
Sect. XYII.
INTRODUCTION.
45
totally distinct, is still so nearly allied to architecture, as to make a
comparison between the two easy and intelligible.
Let us, for instance, take a series of ships, beginning with those in
which 'William the Conqueror invaded our shores, or the fleet with which
Edward III. crossecl over to France. Next take the vessels which trans-
ported Henry VIII. to his meeting with Francis I., and then pass on to
the time of the Spanish Armacla ancl the sea fights of Van Tromp and
De Ruyter, ancl on to the times of William III., ancl then through the
familiar examples till we come to such ships as the ‘ Wellington’ and
‘ Marlborough ’ of yesterday, ancl the ‘ Warrior ’ or ‘Minotaur ’ of to-day.
In all this iong list of examples we have a graclual, steacly, forwarcl
progress without one check or break. Each century is in aclvance of
the one before it, ancl the result is as near perfection as we can well
coneeive.
But if we ask who effectecl these improvements, or who inventecl any
part of the last-namecl wonderful fabrics, we must search cleep incleed
into the annals of the navy to find out. But no one has inquired and
no one cares to know, for the simple reason that, like architecture
in the Middle Ages, it is a true ancl living art, and the improve-
ments were not eflectecl by individuals, but by all classes—owners,
sailors, shipwrights, and men of science, all working together through
centuries, each lencling the aid of his experience or of his reasoning.
If we place alongside of this series of ships a list of churches or
cathedrals, commencing with Charlemagne ancl enclingwith Charles V.,
we fincl the same steady ancl assured progress obtained by the same
iclentical means. In this instance, princes, priests, masons, and mathe-
maticians, all worked steadily together for the whole period, striving
to obtain a well-clefined result.
In the ship the most suitable materials only are employed in every
part, and neither below nor aloft is there one single timber nor spar
nor one rope which is superfluous. Nor in the catheclral was any
material ever used that was not believed to be the most suitable for its
purpose j nor any form of construction acloptecl which did not seem the
best to those who employed it; nor any cletail adclecl which dicl not
appear necessary for the purpose it was designed to express ; the result
being, that we can look on ancl contemplate both with the same un-
mitigatecl satisfaction.
The one point where this comparison seems to halt is, that ship-
building never became a purely fine art, which architecture really is.
The difierence is only one of aim, which it woulcl be as easy to apply
to the one art as it has been to the other. Hacl architecture never
progressecl beyond its one strictly legitimate object of house-building,
it woulcl never have been more near a fine art than merchant ship-
building, and palaces would only have been magnifiecl clwelling-places.
Castles and men-of-war advancecl both one stage further towards a fine
INTRODUCTION.
45
totally distinct, is still so nearly allied to architecture, as to make a
comparison between the two easy and intelligible.
Let us, for instance, take a series of ships, beginning with those in
which 'William the Conqueror invaded our shores, or the fleet with which
Edward III. crossecl over to France. Next take the vessels which trans-
ported Henry VIII. to his meeting with Francis I., and then pass on to
the time of the Spanish Armacla ancl the sea fights of Van Tromp and
De Ruyter, ancl on to the times of William III., ancl then through the
familiar examples till we come to such ships as the ‘ Wellington’ and
‘ Marlborough ’ of yesterday, ancl the ‘ Warrior ’ or ‘Minotaur ’ of to-day.
In all this iong list of examples we have a graclual, steacly, forwarcl
progress without one check or break. Each century is in aclvance of
the one before it, ancl the result is as near perfection as we can well
coneeive.
But if we ask who effectecl these improvements, or who inventecl any
part of the last-namecl wonderful fabrics, we must search cleep incleed
into the annals of the navy to find out. But no one has inquired and
no one cares to know, for the simple reason that, like architecture
in the Middle Ages, it is a true ancl living art, and the improve-
ments were not eflectecl by individuals, but by all classes—owners,
sailors, shipwrights, and men of science, all working together through
centuries, each lencling the aid of his experience or of his reasoning.
If we place alongside of this series of ships a list of churches or
cathedrals, commencing with Charlemagne ancl enclingwith Charles V.,
we fincl the same steady ancl assured progress obtained by the same
iclentical means. In this instance, princes, priests, masons, and mathe-
maticians, all worked steadily together for the whole period, striving
to obtain a well-clefined result.
In the ship the most suitable materials only are employed in every
part, and neither below nor aloft is there one single timber nor spar
nor one rope which is superfluous. Nor in the catheclral was any
material ever used that was not believed to be the most suitable for its
purpose j nor any form of construction acloptecl which did not seem the
best to those who employed it; nor any cletail adclecl which dicl not
appear necessary for the purpose it was designed to express ; the result
being, that we can look on ancl contemplate both with the same un-
mitigatecl satisfaction.
The one point where this comparison seems to halt is, that ship-
building never became a purely fine art, which architecture really is.
The difierence is only one of aim, which it woulcl be as easy to apply
to the one art as it has been to the other. Hacl architecture never
progressecl beyond its one strictly legitimate object of house-building,
it woulcl never have been more near a fine art than merchant ship-
building, and palaces would only have been magnifiecl clwelling-places.
Castles and men-of-war advancecl both one stage further towards a fine