The architecture of humanism; a study in the history of taste

THE ]|ECHA;^ICAL

FALLACY 113

architects
ofths Renaissance,
asaschool,not only

enrichedarchitejtture

witinewbeauty,butwereable

todignify

thecurrentofiordinary

lifebybendingto

itsusestheoncerigidforiAs

oftheantique. Andthis

theydid bybasingtheirartfranklyon thefactsof

perception. They

appealed, in fact, from abstract

logic

topsychology.

Asimilardefence maybeenteredfor

theRenais-

sance

practiceofcombining thearchwiththe lintel

insuchawaythattheactualstructuralvalueofthe

latter becomes nugatory, and merely valuable as

surface decoration, or for its elaborate systems of

projectionswhichcarrynothingbutthemselves. If

we

grantthat

architecturalpleasureisbasedessenti-

ally

uponoursympathywithconstructive (or,

as

we

have

agreed,

apparentlyconstructiveform),then no

kindofdecoration couldbe

moresuitabletoarchi-

tecturethanonewhich,sotosay,re-echoesthe

main

theme

with which

all building is concerned. In

Renaissance architecture, one might say, the wall

becomesarticulate,andexpressesitsidealproperties

throughitsdecoration. Awallis

based

onone

thing,

supports another, and forms a transition between

thetwo,and theclassicorders,when applieddeco-

ratively,

represented,

for the Renaissance builders,

anidealexpressionofthese

qualities,stated asgene-

ralities.

The

fallacylieswiththescientificprejudice

whichinsistsontreatingthemas

particularstatements

H