WILLIAM LETHABY AND THE TWO WAYS OF BUILDING

Author(s): Trevor Garnham

Source: AA Files, No. 10 (Autumn 1985), pp. 27-43
Published by: Architectural Association School of Architecture
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29543471
Accessed: 09-02-2016 01:25 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Architectural Association School of Architecture is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AA
Files.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
William Lethaby
and the two ways of building
Trevor Garnham

WilliamLethaby emerged as a critic at the end of 1895with a 'features' such as 'conventionally accepted cornice mouldings, egg and
series of lectures, 'Modern Building Design', inwhich he tongue ornaments'.6 The following week therewas a furthernote of
firstunfolded a rationalist position derived fromArts and dissent in a letterfromBanister Fletcher demanding 'is thought itselfto
Crafts precepts. This was to secure him a place in the history of the count fornothing?'7
Modern Movement. Goodhart-Rendel wrote that 'functionalism was Lethaby's views were eagerly received by the new AA president,
firstpreached inEngland by Professor Lethaby',1 and thisbeliefwas up? W. D. Caroe. In his inaugural address of n October 1895Caroe had said
held by Banham inhis Theory and Design in theFirstMachine Age, where of him, '"Handicraft" is his key-note and ultimatum', though he
Lethaby's proto-functionalist writings occupy half a chapter.2 Sim? expressed doubt about the call to abandon 'all teaching from the
ilarly, in themost recent book on Arts and Crafts architecture, Peter historical past'.8 The belief that architecturemight be revitalized by 'an
Davey refers to him as 'theGuide' who ledVictorian architects out of active study ofmaterials' had gained considerable support, and theAA
the cul-de-sac of style revivalism, but also calls him 'the Iscariot' of the had incorporated a School ofDesign andHandicraft into itscourse for
movement, who betrayed the ideals ofRuskin andMorris, the ideal of the 1895/96session.9Lethaby delivered the opening address, inwhich he
hand-work, thus opening the door for amachine-based architecture.3 may have stated his case for 'Modern Building Design', because itwas
But ifone takes a closer look at hiswritings and sets hiswork within reported that he gave 'the School an interesting and suggestive analysis
the context of English Romanticism Lethaby appears, perhaps more of the fundamental principles of architectural design'.10
justly, to be a last offshoot of the Romantic Movement. Though Lethaby's lectureswere reviewed in theDecember issue ofAA Notes
Lethaby's writings might have helped to formulate ideas that shaped the by A. T. Bolton, who was sceptical that 'scholarship' had destroyed 'all
Modern Movement, his vision of architecture isnot easily reconciled building tradition', and suggested instead that the fall of architecture
with twentieth-centurymodernism. Despite opposing historicism and reflected the decline of society. 'The improvement, however, of society
encouraging designers to incorporate what he called 'thedata of today', isdoubtless included in theCurriculum of thePositive School ofArchi?
?
hewas nevertheless fascinated by thepast and acknowledged its import? tecture', he added sardonically.11 These dissenters Statham, Bolton,
ance for contemporary architecture. There seem to be two Lethabys Banister Fletcher ? would probably not have disagreed with the pro?
? theman who could write that 'we need a true science of architec?
position that closer contact with materials andmethods ofwork might
ture', 'an efficiency style',4 and the Romantic Lethaby, champion of lead to an improvement in architecture. But Lethaby seemed to be sug?
as as discarding the notion
traditional crafts and exponent of the esoteric views of Architecture, gesting something farmore radical, for, well
Mysticism andMyth
? and
they need to be reconciled. of style, he wanted to substitute for the word architecture ? and
? a term such as 'reasonable
possibly the very idea itself building' or
Lethaby's lectures of 1895were fully reported inThe Builder, and 'rational building'.
provoked a debate between its editor, H. H. Statham, and In his lecture Lethaby summarized his position and his programme
Lethaby which was taken up by theArchitectural Association in for architectural education thus:
the following year. The lectureswere related to Lethaby's report on art
Harmony with the rest of nature was the [first] great rule of art... Nature fur?
and architectural education prepared for theTechnical Education Board . . .Tradition
nished well-defined positive conditions. furnishes us with the
of theLondon County Council, inwhich he took the opportunity to second groupof positive conditions,but themethods of classifyingold artmust
attack theGrand Manner: be reversed;insteadof classifyingtheirobservationshistoricallyby time,place,
and differences of style, they must consider them as constructive expedients
to
The cry was for 'style' and the assumption was made that architecture was made meet definite requirements.... The third corner-stone in any positive foun?
up of features-The mistake lay in the endeavour to design style.Stylewas dation foramodern building isneed or utility. Itmight be said thatas soon as
only away of doing things,and as inseparablefromactivityas faithfromworks. you put pencil to paper some distinctivestylewould come in; butwhen the
... Those who canwe not begin again and hunt down every trickof
bespatteredtheirbuildingswith thrice-boiledslimeand crawling drawing has beenmade,
?
horrorstheycalledornamentationdid itbecause they likedthatkind of thing.5 style
one at a time
engaged pilasters, pedimented windows, etc.12

Statham replied in an editorial headed 'Mr Lethaby's Architectural The fourth recommendation, that of acknowledging the conditions
Gospel', challenging his argument and defending the use of architectural 'given by materials and themanner ofworking them',13was adopted

AA FILES 10 27
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
enthusiastically by theAA during the course of the 1895/96session,with
the school entering into agreements with theTrades Technical School,
Battersea Polytechnic and Chelsea Polytechnic whereby AA students
were allowed to use theirworkshops.14 However, Lethaby's suggestion
that the notion of style as the basis of design should be replaced by
something like an encyclopaedic classification of architecture's struc?
tural andmaterial properties gained less support.
Statham gave amore considered reply in a seriesof extempore lectures
on 'Modern Architecture* at theAA inApril andMay 1896,15a synopsis
ofwhich coincides with the chapter headings of his book Modern Archi?
tecture (1897).16He singled out Lethaby as the leader of 'these new
prophets' who would 'return to the primary elements of building, dis?
card all things that can be called "features" in the design, and simply
make it a frankly expressed structure'.17His own view was that 'we
may take, and constantly do take, the semblance of featureswhich by
long association have acquired a special architectural meaning or
motive, and make use of them to assist the decorative expression of
design'.18He believed, moreover, that books, photography and travel
made such references inevitable.Although in this case Statham touched
upon something which is significant to the problem of style, he had
nothing more substantial to offer on the subject, and his lectures
amounted to littlemore than an apologia for theGrand Manner, most
of the illustrations inhis book being projects in that style (Fig. 1).
1.Rear elevationoftheprize-winningdesignfor theEdinburghMunicipal
Buildings, 1887,byLeemingandLeeming. Illustration fromH. H. Statham's
Modern Architecture (1897).
Nevertheless, the tide of opinion seemed to be flowing Lethaby's way
throughout 1896. In his inaugural address on 9October the new presi?
dent of theAA, Beresford Pite, spoke warmly of Lethaby's approach
and welcomed the opening three days hence of the new Central School
of Arts and Crafts under Lethaby's directorship.19 On 13October
Lethaby once again gave the opening address to a 'crowded meeting' of
theA A School ofDesign andHandicraft (reported inAA Notes under
28
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the heading 'Mr Lethaby on Rational Building'),20 and theworkshop
demonstrations he arranged for the school inDecember and January
proved to be very popular.21
But during 1897,theyear of theAA's diamond jubilee, the tide turned.
Workshop exchanges are not recorded inAA Notes, reports of the activ?
itiesof the School ofDesign (as ithad by then become) are infrequent,
and the only mention of Lethaby is a short account of his opening
address for the 1897/98 session.22Two clues to this sudden change are to
be found in an article on 'The Future of theAA* written by Aston
Webb for a commemorative issue of AA Notes. Its future is safe, he
asserts, as long as it remains in the hands of itsmembers, and theymust
'not let itfallunder anyGovernment Department, Local Authority or
Technical Education "scheme,,\23 This is clearly a reference to the
increasing linkswith the polytechnics thatwere being encouraged by
Lethaby and others.Webb also refers, in the article, to the unwritten
rule that 'asmembers take the chair they cease to take an active part in
themanagement of affairs'.24As editor of A A Notes in 1895and 1896,
Beresford Pite had ample opportunity to champion Lethaby's cause, but
when he became theAA president his influencemust have been cur?
tailed.As forAston Webb, he was, of course, an adherent of theGrand
Manner, and itwas theGrand Manner that became the styleof the age.
The year 1897was crucial to the movement's success. In addition to
Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee,which inspired a surge of patriotism
and a taste for architecture thatwas suitably grandiose, it saw the publi?
cation ofReginald Blomfield's^l History ofRenaissance Architecture in
England and the award of firstprize to John Belcher's design for theCol?
chester town hall competition. (In themany competitions for public
buildings thatwere held during those years, the prize nearly always
went to a design in theGrand Manner.25)
Lethaby was scathing about the Grand Manner. As a follower of
Ruskin andMorris, he rejectedNeo-classicism, though he was familiar
with Vitruvius and several Renaissance treatises26and wrote essays on
Inigo Jones27 andWren's 'Parentalia',28 and a book on Greek architec?
ture.29Itwas this very respect for the classical tradition which led him
to condemn theGrand Manner as
superficial and intellectually trivial.
Lethaby and his circle were not alone in this criticism. Goodhart
Rendel, a champion of theBeaux-Arts, deplored the lack of principles in
theGrand Manner, and laterwrote that 'we rushed into the neo-classical
in rabble formation, flying the banner of the picturesque'.30 Beresford
Pite, who flirtedwith classicism, blamed the competition system for en?
couraging picturesque draughtmanship, fromwhich ensued 'indigested
and unscholarly designs'.31
Thus the debate was between the supporters of theGrand Manner, in
effecta continuation of the nineteenth-century preoccupation with the
picturesque, and those who upheld theArts and Crafts tradition, or
rational building, as the one more likely to raise an architecture which
fitted the age. It provoked Lethaby to write about 'the two ways of
building'inhis biographyof PhilipWebb,32butperhapsthemost
eloquent designation of the 'twoways' is the titleof an essaywritten by
Hermann Muthesius during his stay inEngland in the 1890s, 'Stilarchi?
tektur und Baukunst' ('Style Architecture and theArt of Building').
The kind of architecture Lethaby envisaged might best be illustrated
by his only commercial building, theEagle Insurance Building of 1900.
In keeping with Lethaby's dictum that 'every trick of style' must be
eradicated, it has, for its time, a rather severe facade which makes a
gesture towards expressing itspost-and-lintel steel-frame construction
(Fig. 2). Instead of conventional ornament Lethaby advocated the use of
incidents of fine hand-work.33 The beautifully made metal doors, the
marble door-lining, and the finely carved inscription panels above are
consistentwith thisprinciple, but there are a number of embellishments
of a differentkind.
The two entrances seem to be inspired by Buddhist gateways illus?
trated inArchitecture,Mysticism andMyth, in the chapter entitled 'The
AA FILES 10
EAGLE
INSURANCE?
COMPANY

2.Eagle InsuranceBuildings,Birmingham,1900,byW. R. LethabyandJ.L. Ball

29
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Golden Gates of the Sun', and the highly polished doors with discs in
reliefmight represent the sun.The discs reappear in the attic,which has
an eagle in flightat the centre? an obvious motif for the
building but
also a conceit of the kind Lethaby relished. InArchitecture,Mysticism
andMyth he describes an ancient temple gate decorated with 'an enor?
mous eagle with expanded wings' representing the sun deity.34The
overall composition of the Eagle Insurance Building, the upper
windows grouped to form a largeopening divided by posts and lintels in
a plane brought forward from thewall plane itself,can be read as a re
interpretation of this theme. Although the building was designed four
years after the 'Modern Building Design' lectures, at a time when
was architects to their
Lethaby urging strip buildings of ornament, it is
more than a 'franklyexpressed structure'.The
representational element
of a seemingly private and idiosyncratic nature,which is characteristic
of all of Lethaby's buildings, is related to his early career.

In 1879,when Lethaby was only 22, hewas invited to become Richard

Norman Shaw's chief clerk after Shaw noticed his prize-winning
competition drawings in one of the journals.35 Lethaby
had earliermade arrangements to enter the officeofWilliam Butterfield,
but upon mentioning his competition success he received a letter from
Butterfield saying 'that he wished to cancel the arrangement, for com?
petitions were upsetting to quiet and steadywork'.36 Itwas by this twist
of fate that the young Lethaby stumbled across the source of the two
ways of building.
Shaw had established his reputation through his Royal Academy
drawings, and Robert Kerr, founder of theAA, called him the instigator
of a 'style of sketchy architecture' guided by 'draughtmanship or
sketchmanship'.37 Butterfield, on the other hand, had begun his career
working for a builder and was preoccupied with building techniques
and materials. Lethaby's enthusiasm for Butterfield's approach con?
tributed to a gradual toughening of Shaw's architecture. For example,
Cragside, with itspicturesque composition dominated by soaring chim?
neys and itsmock half-timber cladding, is typical of Shaw's early period
(themarble chimney-piece/inglenook in the drawing room is generally
attributed to Lethaby)38 (Fig. 3),whereas No. 42 Netherhall Gardens
3. Cragside,Rothbury,
Northumberland,1870,byRichardNorman Shaw. (Fig. 4), built in 1888,is strikinglydifferent,particularly the plain brick
Exterior view and room. ? the
drawing elevation, which is thought to be by Lethaby drawings appear to
be inhis hand, and it isknown thathe collaborated with Shaw and often
worked up elevations and detail designs from the plans.39
In 1884Lethaby helped to found theArt Workers' Guild, the aim of
which was to strengthen the links between architecture and the crafts.40
At that timemany young architectswere attracted to the craftsand the
idea of the guild.When he leftShaw in 1889,Lethaby, togetherwith
Ernest Gimson, Sydney Barnsley, Mervin Macartney and Reginald
Blomfield, established a short-lived firm,Kenton and Co., to design and
make furniture.41 However, Lethaby's optimism that this engagement
with the craftswould regenerate architecture eventually faded, for too
many architectsmerely incorporated antiquated techniques into their
own work. He laterwrote,'it was extremely unfortunate that theArts
and Crafts movement... coincided with theviolent fashion forantiques
of every kind. And this resulted in a sort of curiosity shop idealwhich
has gone very far towards destroying the higher forms of invention'.42
His own position, more complex than that of simply aiming to revive
the crafts, is related to his fascination with symbolism, revealed in the
book Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, his firstmajor independent
undertaking after leaving Shaw. What ispuzzling about this book, and
his design preoccupations at that time, is that they give very little indi?
cation of the ideas that he was to put forward in the 'Modern Building
Design' lectures fouryears later; in fact they are diametrically opposed.
Architecture,Mysticism and Myth, published in 1891,was extraordin?
arily unlike any previous book on architecture in that Lethaby drew
4. 42NetherhallGardens,London, 1888,byRichardNorman Shaw.
upon anthropology, ethnology and mythology in his search for the

30 AA FILES 10

This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
origins of architecture. His subject matter he called 'the stories about
buildings', and 'themythology of architecture'.43The study of origins,
he believed, might reveal in its simplified form an activitywhich had
become increasingly complex and perhaps misunderstood. For nearly a
hundred years the practice of architecture had amounted to littlemore
than cladding a structurewith meaningless decoration. Lethaby was call?
ingfor something like a stripping-down so that architecture could regain
itsauthenticity.He adapted Ruskin's distinction between architecture
and building, including the analogy of mind and body, to express his
belief thatarchitecture isa pure ideawhich is compromised by the act of
building, although, unlike Ruskin, he incorporated plan and structure
In
5.Drawing ofa zigguraty
byW. R. Lethaby,
fromArchitecture,Mysticism and
Myth (1891).
into this framework.44According to Lethaby, mythology best fitted
thisdistinction, for 'It isonly in story thatwe can find an ideal architec?
ture.'45The buildings described inmyths tend to lose their distinguish?
ing features arid are instead endowed with archetypal characteristics.46
Lethaby's aimwas to explain how symbolism works in architecture,
inorder to prove thatoriginally both structureand ornament had mean?
ing,and that style isnot merely a question of choice. He borrowed from
Frazer's The Golden Bough the principle of homoeopathic, or sym?
pathetic, magic by which an object can be endowed with qualities
through imitation or analogy.47An example is the eye painted on the
prow of certainMediterranean ships, the eye being a signof both the fish
and the firstship.48The qualities possessed by the natural thing, the fish
? its ?
ability to swim and to find itsway across the pathless sea were
transferred,by imitation, to theman-made object, the ship. Lethaby's
purpose was to demonstrate that architecture was originally an imi?
tation of the universe or cosmos. The earliest symbolic conception of
AA FILES 10
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the cosmos was that of a tree or a mountain supporting the heavens,
which revolve around it.49It has been suggested that the Sumerians,
who were forced to abandon theirmountainous home for the flood
plains of theEuphrates, built their ziggurats in imitation of amythical
sacred mountain so that they could continue theirworship (Fig. 5).
Lethaby found in the ancient ziggurat an example of symbolism which
closely fittedboth theprinciple of imitation and his distinction between
thepure idea of architecture and itsbuilt form.The world mountain was
a pure idea, a
metaphor for the structureof theworld, which was based
on an analogy with a natural form. The
ziggurat was a symbolic
representation of this idea, the purity of which was necessarily com?
? its summit
promised by the limitations of building did not reach the
heavens, nor did they exactly revolve around it.
As an example of symbolism improperly used, Lethaby pointed to the
fact that, although miles of egg-and-dartmouldings were to be found on
Grand Manner buildings, few of the architectswho drew itwere aware
of itsoriginal meaning. The 'egg' represents the lotus flower, an Egyp?
tian symbol of lifeand itsrenewal; the 'dart' represents papyrus, which
was a symbol of the intellect.50These symbols, which had been
absorbed into the classical tradition by theGreeks, would have been
comprehensible to anyGreek or Roman citizen, and most Renaissance
men. Lethaby's objection to theuse of egg and dart in the latenineteenth
century was, first,that theirmeaning was no longer generally under?
stood and, secondly, that decorative forms were not valid if they
referred to a context of beliefs which no longer existed.He went on to
argue that 'Old architecture lived because it had a purpose. Modern
architecture, to be real,must not be amere envelope without contents
... ifwe would have architecture excite interest, real and
general, we
must have a symbolism, immediately the greatmaj?
comprehensible by
ority of the spectators/51
Architecture,Mysticism and Myth, itmust be said, is something of a
jumble, with no clear conclusions. Some remarks by Lethaby's friend
Robert Schultz Weir reveal how his rather obscure message was mis?
understood: 'This book opened up to us younger men a hitherto un?
dreamed ofworld of romance in architecture.The labyrinth, the golden
gates of the sun, pavements like the sea... Iwas at that time about to do
a small
private chapel, into itwent a pavement like the sea and a ceiling
like the sky as an accepted tradition.'52Lethaby's point was, of course,
precisely the opposite, that these symbols were not part of 'an accepted
tradition*.The book was nevertheless widely used as a source for eso?
tericdecorative motifs, and as such the extent of its influence isbecom?
ing increasingly apparent.53
1891Lethaby began work on Avon Tyrrell, his first independent
commission (Fig. 6). Shortly before this he had published an essay,
'Of the "Motive" inArchitectural Design', inwhich he described
some of his ideas for the
design of a stately house under one roof, using
the principle of 'symmetry in the parts' as an ordering device, and
making themost of a sloping site.54 He incorporated these ideas into the
design forAvon Tyrrell, though he used symmetry as a broad control?
ling framework rather than to locate each element. This is best illus?
trated by the north facade, particularly the entrance court, where the
enormous window of the hall rudely
interrupts the balance of the com?
position (Fig. 6). In the same essay Lethaby lamented the lack of a satis?
factory theory of design and criticized the prevailing one, 'that old
dogma of utilitarianism', which goes back to Pugin, for relying on con?
venience as the decisive ordering principle of a plan. 'Is a vista a conveni?
ence?' he scornfully asked. Lethaby allowed the large hall window of
Avon Tyrrell to disrupt the symmetry of the facade in order to set up a
vista of the Solent, which is first glimpsed, upon entering the hall,
through a corresponding window at the other end. He could just as
? and more ? have
easily economically devised a smaller hall opening
on to the entrance side but the view was the primary motive for
only,
31
6.Avon Tyrrell,nrRingwood,Hampshire, 1891-3,byW.R. Lethaby.
a. entrance b. c. hall; d. e.
facade; garden fa&zde; fireplace; plan, from Hermann
Muthesius'sDas englischeHaus (1904).

This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 his layout, and the huge windows were needed to provide light for the
longhall (Fig.6).
Above the entrance facade is a pair of peacocks adapted from the
client's coat of arms. These, togetherwith the chimney representing the
hearth as the centre of family life, recall a motif which Lethaby illus?
trates inArchitecture,Mysticism andMyth with an omphalos (literally the
navel, and ametaphor for the centre of the earth) flanked by two eagles
a some
(Fig. 7).55To the leftof the entrance is tiny temple, inspired by
temples that are described in the book as standing four-square at the
centre of theworld, which marks the centre of the facade aswell as the
axis of the garden entrance beyond.
The contrast between the fireplace in the hall (Fig. 6) and that at
a
Cragside (Fig. 3) is remarkable, and represents radical shiftinLethaby's
attitude toward ornament, fromwhat might be called story-telling, to
what he described as 'the direct "spiritual" appeal' of materials.56 At
Avon Tyrrell the surfaces are kept absolutely flat so that the decorative
case
quality isobtained from the strikinggrain of themarble itself.In the
of a material such as plaster which has little inherent surface appeal,
Lethaby encouraged the craftsman to avoid conventional ornament,
and instead to bring 'into our rooms some reminder of the beauty and
freshness of nature, some message from theEarth Mother'.57

floor of thetempleofDelphi was a stone"calledby the

7. 'On the Delphians the
Navel, accordingto theirtradition,thecentreof theworld"(Pausanias). The story
was told, that to determine the true centre of the earth, Jupiter sent out two eagles,
onefrom theeast,theother met at thisspot.'Drawing and
from thewest,and they
the
descriptionof omphalosbyW.R. Lethaby, fromArchitecture,Mysticism
andMyth (1891).

ome ofWilliam Morris's ideas had puzzled or offended Lethaby in

his 'young and aesthetic days',58 but while work on Avon Tyrrell
was inprogress he seems to have undergone awholehearted con?
version to the teachings ofMorris and of Philip Webb. They were
con?
largely responsible forLethaby's re-evaluation of the doctrine of
venience, or utility, in the 'Modern Building Design' lectures, and for
the reversal of his view that the purity of architecture is compromised
by building. Lethaby's firstwriting afterArchitecture,Mysticism and
even includes a
Myth, the essay 'The Builder's Art and theCraftsman',59
four-page quotation fromMorris's essay 'The Influence of Building
Materials upon Architecture'.60 However, the conversion was prob?
ably more a result of personal contact, for in early 1892Lethaby joined
the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, where he began
as
friendshipswith Morris andWebb.61 (He laterdescribed the Society
'a school of rational builders and modern building'.62) From this time,
Lethaby believed, he was led to a trueunderstanding of architecture by
what he described as 'the happy chance of close intimacywith Philip
Webb'.63 The opportunities for contact were increasedwhen Lethaby
moved his office nearWebb's atGray's Inn, for, as he laterwrote, 'we
were always in and out'.64Webb's design for Standen (Fig. 8)was prob?
ably on the drawing board when Lethaby visited, and it clearly influ?
enced his own design forAvon Tyrrell. 'A series of gables like somany
waves always appealed toWebb', wrote Lethaby, and atAvon Tyrrell
he introduced amassive chimney-breast at the end to 'hold' the run of
a
gables in the sameway thatWebb used water tower at Standen.65

AA FILES 10 33

This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lethaby compared Webb to Browning for his ability to reveal 'the
romantic and the poetic in the real',66 expressed in the rich variety of
materials that he used ? at Standen, for example he combined stone,
brick, tile-hanging,weather-boarding and render.Webb himselfwrote
that he was never satisfieduntil hiswork looked commonplace. In con?
versations with Lethaby he defined art as 'a folk instinct bubbling up
from deep natural wells', and architecture as a kind of 'folk art-ballad
? the
building'.67 These notions commonplace, folk art, romance in
?
the real were first introduced inThe Lyrical Ballads ofWordsworth
and Coleridge, a seminal work of English Romanticism. Webb almost
certainly saw himself as part of that tradition, and his use of the vernac?
ular could be regarded as analogous to the attempt to revitalize poetry
by rejecting the artificeof neo-classical diction and using instead 'the real
was Lethaby's
language ofmen' and 'incidents of common life'.68This
interpretation in his of
biography Webb, and when Morris spoke of the
'revival of the art of architecture', he probably had Webb most in
mind.69Webb sharedMorris's ambition of reviving the crafts,but also
were often hidebound, thus he
recognized that traditional techniques
wanted to introduce a fresh strainof rational thought, desiring no more
than to elevate the crafts.Although he inspired inLethaby 'the impulse
towards experiment and invention',70 Lethaby's aspiration was to go
8. Standen,East Grinstead,Sussex,1891-4,byPhilipWebb. Gardenfacade.
beyond this, to reduce architecture to itsessentials.This approachWebb
teasingly labelled 'Evasionist Art andNegationist Style'.71
The notion of hand-work is crucial to the interpretations given to
Romanticism byMorris, Webb and? aswe shall see? Lethaby. In one
of the few essays inwhich Morris reasons from firstprinciples rather
than history, he describes three kinds of labour, which he names
Mechanical Toil, Intelligent Work, and Imaginative Work.72 The
source of this conception was probably Ruskin's Modern Painters, in
which he drew a distinction between what he called 'Fancy' and 'Imag?
ination'. 'Fancy', Ruskin wrote, 'appears to be in a sortmechanical',
'merely decorative and entertaining',whereas Imagination represented
'the highest intellectual power of man'.73 These terms he had almost
certainly borrowed fromColeridge's Biographia Literaria.7*
Coleridge's conception of Imagination developed as a response to
what he considered to be the shortcomings of theprevailing conception
of themind as advanced by the empirical philosophers, inwhich the
mind is conceived of as a tabula rasa on towhich are imprinted external
impressions conveyed by the senses.These mental images, or replicas of
sensory data, are stored in thememory and, in the act of thinking, are re?
called and combined with other stored images by association. The essen?
tial featureof this conception is the principle of aggregation:memory as
the accumulation of sensory data and thinking as the association of sim?
ple ideas or fragmentswhich recall thewhole. Coleridge, in contrast,
believed there to be an active, originating power atwork in the act of
thinking, and this led him to propose that themind is composed of two
distinct faculties: Fancy, which he defined as 'the aggregative', and
Imagination, 'themodifying and fusive' faculty.75Imagination was 'the
livingPower and prime Agent of all human Perception', and 'a repeti?
tion in the finitemind of the eternal act of creation'.76
Morris's attacks on the division of labour, or 'Mechanical Toil', were
based on the conviction that itundermines the faculty of Imagination
and, by implication, the very unity ofman's being, whereas in hand?
work there is a constant exchange between themind, the hand and the
material it shapes? what Spengler was later to call 'the act of the think?
inghand'.77
Ruskin introduced these ideas into architecture through his notion of
'savageness', which he firstarticulated inThe Stones ofVenice. Itwas,
? but with a
essentially, a call for the thinking hand in architecture
religious twist. The evangelical Ruskin believed that, just as the Bible
was literally theword of God open to individual interpretation,78 so
Nature, also thework of God, was likewise open to interpretation.
According to him, Gothic architecture owed itsvitality to the freedom

34 AA FILES 10

This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of themedieval mason to interpret 'the book of nature' inhis carvings.
was to be toler?
'Savageness' refers to the element of imperfection that
ated as an acknowledgement of man's unworthiness before God79 ?
and no doubt itwas also an allusion to that seminalRomantic figure,the
noble savage.
One of the building projects inwhich an attemptwas made to incor?
porate Ruskin's ideas is theOxford Museum. The architects,Deane and
Woodward, who won the competition for the commission in 1854,80
imported from Ireland two masons, the brothers O'Shea, to carry out
an elaborate programme of sculpture. The resultwas finework of great
originality (Fig. 9), carved from direct studies of plants brought fresh to
the site each day, but the freedom given these 'noble savages' soon
attracted censure from the university authorities and,with only a quar?
terof the carvings completed, theO'Sheas were dismissed. Morris was
atOxford during themuseum's construction, and may have witnessed
this enterprise. Itmay even have influenced his decision, upon reading
The Stones ofVenice?1 to abandon his theological studies for the battle?
fieldof art.
From this traditionLethaby drew amore sober assessment of the pos?
sibilitiesfor architecture at the turnof the century.Although hewas not
prepared to abandon entirely the principle of the thinking hand, he
observed that ithad become 'a scientific age, and the old practical arts,
produced instinctively, belong to an entirely different age'.82 Shifting
the emphasis from individualism indesign to service and universality, he
chose amore empirical and positivistic approach inwhich architecture
was defined as a rational and ever-developing art,with only a part
remaining for the hand. Itwas necessary, he wrote, 'to distinguish
between the general mass ofwork which must be executed "mechan?
ically" and some residuewhich might yet be saved for individual souls to
care for'.83

Lethaby made a final attempt to incorporate the thinking hand inhis

was
design ofAll Saints, Brockhampton, in 1900 (Fig. 10).The church
built,without a contractor, by craftsmen hired by Lethaby himself, and
thework was supervised by a young architect,Randall Wells'. As work
aswe shall see,
progressed the building was modified and improved, but,
thisprocedure was not without problems.
The preliminary design, a structure of stone arches supporting oak
purlins and rafters (similar to Edward Prior's church at Bothen 9.OxfordMuseum, 1855-61,byDeaneand Woodward. Photographofone of the
was hardly a demonstration of
hampton, which Lethaby knew),84 O'Shea brothers carving and interior view.
Lethaby's proposition that architecturemust be an experimental struc?
tural art (Fig. 10).He may have been prodded into revising the design,
for inMay 1900 Shaw wrote to him: 'We know much about Leonardo
and oldWren, but the times are so different.Reinforced concrete ought
to do a lot for us.What do you say to have a turn on those lines?'85
Lethaby revised the design, and the resultwas a unique structure com?
prising unreinforced concrete slabs, cast in situon 'rough boards', bear?
ing on low-sprung stone arches.86The combination of whitewashed
concrete roof and very low pointed arches gives the church an austere,
almost primitive character. The low roof pressing down over the nave
induces a feeling of humility, and the nave is separated from the sanc?
tuaryby a simple chancel arch. This expression ofChristian symbolism
is reinforced by the relative darkness of the nave compared to the cross?
ing,which isbrightly lit from a source concealed high in the tower and
not visible from the nave. The base of the baptismal font is carved in the
formof a ship's bollard, and^i cross in the form of an anchor surmounts
the eastern gable. Despite these embellishments, the building contains
not one stylistic reference. The exterior is very plain, a rational inter?
pretation of theHerefordshire tradition of thatched stone churches.
Concrete and thatch isan eminently sensible combination, utilizing the
use of
insulatingproperty of thatch and reducing the firehazard by the
which also retains heat ?
concrete, effectively though Lethaby may
have decided to use thatch as a lightweight covering for this unproven
structure.

AA FILES 10 35
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 10.All Saints,Brockhampton,1900-02,by
W.R. Lethaby.

}6
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 One of the difficulties associated with the experimental method of
construction is themore likely occurrence of failures.At one point
Wells decided to raise the crossing tower considerably, but cracks
appeared and itwas lowered.87On another occasion Lethaby heard
fromhis client about an arch thathad collapsed soon afterbeing erected.
He had been told nothing of thisbyWells. When questioned, theyoung
site architect replied thathe had been tryingan experimentwith mortar
and that ithadn't seemedworthwhile tomention it.The project turned
out to be an altogether worrying experience forLethaby. There were
pockets of clay beneath parts of the foundation, and itwas feared that
the east end might begin to slide down the slope of the site. Lethaby
faced the prospect of having to underpin the foundation at his own
expense, but amass of concrete poured into the foundation at the east
end arrested the subsidence.88He took all this badly and, believing that
he had been to some extent negligent, declined his fee. Itwas the last
building he completed.
The church at Brockhampton shows how farLethaby, in his will?
ingness to experiment with new materials and techniques, had gone
beyond the teachings ofMorris andWebb. It shows, furthermore, that
he had not abandoned his earlier preoccupation with the use of sym?
bolism. Perhaps the best example of the role of symbolism inhismature
work is a church building he designed in 1900, theChapel of SS Colm
andMargaret atMelsetter House on the island ofHoy in theOrkneys
(Fig. 11).This tiny building is spanned by a concrete vault, the profile of
which suggests an upturned boat. The word 'nave' derives from the
Latin navis, or boat, and in the early days of Christianity the 'ship of
salvation' was frequently used as ametaphor for theChurch. A stone
arch resembling the cross-bracing of a boat separates the chancel from
the nave, but has no structural function. In one of his earliest essays
Lethaby discussed the symbolism of the chancel arch, how itrepresents
the 'strait gate' between thisworld and the sanctuary 'beyond the
veil'.89Characteristically, however, he borrowed only the idea of this
symbol, and the form he gave itwas entirely new, owing nothing to
style or precedent. It should also be noted that Lethaby wanted to
endow not just the ornament but also space of the churchwith meaning,
and this reveals the essential difference between his position and that of
Ruskin. r
The roof of the bell tower is also in the form of a section cut through
an upturned boat. As at
Brockhampton, a cross in the formof an anchor
surmounts the eastern gable. This is another early Christian symbol
denoting hope for the sufferingsoul, probably derived from aNew Test?
ament saying, 'which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure
and steadfast' (Hebrews 6:19). Over the entrance of the chapel isa carv?
ing composed of a cross, a circle and a crescent, symbolizing Christ,
Lord over theHeavens, an emblem often used inmedieval manuscripts
and in the carvings above the portals of Romanesque churches. How?
ever, Lethaby, inkeeping with his argument inArchitecture,Mysticism
and Myth, reduced the allegory to its essential components, the cross 11.Chapel ofSSColm &Margaret,Melsetter,
Hoy, 1898,hyW.R. Lethahy.
representingChrist and theChurch, the circle the sun, and the crescent Exterior view, detail of entrance, and section drawing.
the moon.

Such a programme was perhaps only possible in a church building, a

context which allowed Lethaby to draw upon a rich tradition of sym?
bolism. More importantly, itwas a living tradition, and thiswould
ensure the legibility of his intentions? another of themajor tenets of
Architecture,Mysticism and Myth. One would therefore hardly expect
such a precise expression of Lethaby's ideas inMelsetter House itself,
which he designed in 1898 (Fig. 12).The exterior is appropriately plain
and sturdy, against the harsh winds of theNorth Sea. Two existing
buildings (now the smoking room and the library) are incorporated into
the plan, which forms a courtyard that is partly let into a hill. The
run of gables, is the only one which
garden facade, with its familiar
appears to be a developed composition. Scattered across itare some of
the recondite emblems Lethaby liked to incorporate: a star and crescent

AA FILES 10 37
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 beneath the spherical finial; two heart-shaped windows; and a heart
one of the three small gables.
shaped finial capping the central

This brief account of All Saints, Brockhampton, andMelsetter

House and itschapel gives sufficientevidence of Lethaby's con?
to archi?
tinuing belief in the importance of ideas and symbols
tecture, that itwas more than just 'building fact,building reason, build?
ing excellence\ Yet, after the publication ofArchitecture,Mysticism and
Myth, he rarely wrote about these issues, concentrating instead on
'such points as fitness for function, soundness of structure,economy of
means to end'.90 Indeed, so often and insistentlydid he reiteratehis view
of architecture as no more than 'reason in building', that itwould be
easy to assume, as many have, that thiswas for him the full extent of
architecture rather than the necessary starting-point.During a discus?
sion following one of Lethaby's lectures, inwhich he had declared that
'architectural growth isby continuous experiment in the possibilities of
structure',Beresford Pite good-humouredly remarked that 'it isvery dif?
ficult to listen to him and forgethis past. Personally I cannot hear him
without being wicked enough to reflectupon those exceedingly stim?
ulating designs of his.'91
A clue to thispuzzle might be the reception ofArchitecture,Mysticism
andMyth. If some readersmisinterpreted it, therewere others, such as
the reviewer for The Times, who found it 'esoteric' and 'simply unintel?
was stung by this criticism, and his next book, The
ligible'.92Lethaby
Church of Sancta Sophia, is impeccably scholarly and refrains from
arcane speculation. During the research for this book Lethaby dis?
covered Choisy, whose analysis of Byzantine architecture as a rational
structural process greatly influenced his thinking.93 It reinforced his
confidence in the teachings ofMorris andWebb but offered further in?
was inspiredby Choisy's emphasis on
sights into the origins of style.He
the importance of the social unit rather than the individual in the devel?
?
opment of style and no doubt by his extraordinary drawings which
lucidly showed how the styles could be analysed in terms of structure
rather than ornament. Thenceforth Lethaby tended to emulate
Choisy's technique of stylisticanalysis, and he became increasingly crit?
ical of those who spoke of style in terms of proportion, expression or
aesthetics.He believed that a new stylewould emerge only iftherewere
a consistent effortbymany minds ? forwhich he coined the expression
'artmany-men-wide'. In order to achieve this itwas particularly import?
ant to abandon the elusive realm of aesthetics and to concentrate on
areas of consensus such as 'efficiency,utility, science and nearness to
?
need'.94 This concentration upon the utilitarian base of architecture
? was
which led to Lethaby's renown as a pioneer of Functionalism
a freshtactic inhis crusade for a new, authentic style. Itwas a
essentially
means to an end, not to be mistaken for a fulldefinition of architecture.
One of Lethaby's most interestingwritings inwhich he develops the
idea of agreement is the essay 'The Theory ofGreek Architecture'. He
characterizes classicism as the pursuit of perfection in 'types ready to
hand'.95 The Greek temple, for example, was an imitation and refine?
ment in stone of an earlier form of timber structure. Its harmonious
formwas the result of continuous development bymany minds pursu?
a
ing shared ideal.

To the ancientmind the thingmade was only worthy to exist in so faras it

followed itsproper lawsof being.The well proportioned templehad reality,it
embodied law, itwas an
approximation
to the absolute type, itwas superhuman,
and held somemagic ofperfection:theParthenonwas not designed, itwas em?
-f?r
bodied, found out, revealed.96
12.MelsetterHouse,Hoy, 1898,byW. R. Lethaby.
He urges architects to think less about aesthetics and themysteries of
on refining types. Elsewhere he defines
proportion and to concentrate
'type' as more a framework of ideas and possibilities than amodel or
expression of particular style; it is away of thinking thatwould enable
a
history to be better, andmore usefully, assimilated.He declares that 'the

AA FILES 10
38
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
true business of architects [is] the improvement of types; the perfect?
ing,that is,of the cottage, the small house, the shop, and all other classes
of structure'.97

Lethaby's only two other buildings could be considered as attempts to

perfect the type of the small house, particularly The Hurst, Edgbaston,
designed in 1893(Fig- *3)-^tsL-shaped plan isclearly derived from
Webb's
Red House (1859) forWilliam Morris, which in turn draws heavily on
Butterfield's Alvechurch Rectory (1855).A wing projecting from the
main body of this type of house creates an informal entrance aswell as
giving east, south and west aspects to the principal rooms.

Whenasked at an RIBA conference in 1917why he did not

'advance to "some theory by which to express ideas'",
Lethaby replied:
because I don't think there can be any agreement on aesthetics... it does not
follow thatthosethingsdo not interest
me profoundly.Indeed, it is justbecause
Iwant a true artistic or human-nature content to our I
given buildings that would
sweep away the teaching of grandiose bunkum as architectural Iwant a

,
style...
due proportion of tenderness, gravity, sweetness and even dullness.
most exquisitepoetic beauty,but I do not seehow thisInstituteisto teachhow
Iwant the
L fc
toproduce it.Therefore I say trainus topracticalpower,make us greatbuilders
SK3RL
IlMOER
and adventurous experimenters, then each of us can supply his own poetry to
taste.98
SCRVANTS
j ?
Although his own buildings are endowed with something of this
I KITCHEN
'poetry', it is regrettable that Lethaby did not leave a more complete
/ f1

account of the kind of architecture he envisaged, for it

might have ??IT^CIi- J
1
PANTRY
~p"
encouraged its realization, and would have acted as a foil to his prolific ]1
~
on y hau
writings points of agreement. Scattered throughout his writings are itt^^
a few of his vision of architecture. These
tantalizing glimpses higher
could be grouped into four categories, each ofwhich can be illustrated library 1 drawing
by aspects of Lethaby's final architectural project, for the Liverpool ROOM
IL ?OOM
[tLininc J '?I
Cathedral competition, which he entered with a group of friends in
1902.99
The firstcategory, the importance ofNature and the thinking hand,
13.TheHurst, Edgbaston, 1893,byW. R. Lethaby.
takesus back to the heartmotif atMelsetter, which Lethaby also used at
Avon Tyrrell. Although Lethaby did occasionally use symbols in a
reconditemanner, it isunlikely that hewould have used the heartmotif
formerely sentimental reasons. I suggest that they are an acknowledge?
ment of his connection with theRomantic tradition.The aim of culture,

Coleridge wrote, is to reveal the unity between man and nature, for
which he coined the expression 'the cultivated heart'.100Lethaby incor?
porated a heart into hismonogram and often used the expression 'with
heart' to describe the kind of building he admired or envisaged ? for
instanceWebb's architecture.101
Lethaby's whole philosophy of lifeand artwas governed by the idea
'that the earth isour larger body', that itwas not to be used as 'amere
convenient backyard formanufacturers', or as 'the refuseheaps of com?
mercialism'.102 The model of a decorative panel for Liverpool
Cathedral ? probably made byHenry Wilson ? can be interpretedas a
reconciliation of Lethaby's pantheistic inclinations with his Christian
beliefs (Fig. 14).A circle within a square, emblem of the ideal and the
made,103 contains a crucifix, before which a man holding a hoe stands
hand in hand with awoman at the knees of theRedeemer. From this
point, precisely the centre of the composition, springs a fruit-ladenvine,
and on itsbranches perch doves symbolizing theHoly Ghost.
The second category iswhat Lethaby called the 'poetry' of architec?
ture, an expression he often used to characterize the intangible qualities
of buildings. In one of his earliest essays Lethaby quotes from the
sixteenth-century writer George Puttenham's The Arte of English
Poesie.? Puttenham draws attention to the fact that, according to the
original meaning of theGreek wordpoiesis, 'a poet is asmuch to say as a
maker'.105 Poiesis referred to the act of composition, putting together,
inventing (a word, incidentally, which Webb always preferred to

AA FILES 10 39
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 a
'designing'); hence the poet was regarded as maker. This play ofmean?
ingsmust have appealed to Lethaby. He often cited Aristotle and was
probably familiar with his Poetics,which introduces the notion ofpoiesis
as a creative act carried out in such away as not to disturb the balance of
the cosmos.106

If classicism is essentially Platonic in character, Lethaby's notion of

architecture as an ever-developing structural art could be described as
Aristotelian. Aristotle wrote in thePoetics that 'thepoet's job isnot to
reportwhat has butwhat is likely to happen; that is,what is capable of
con?
happening according to the rules of probability or necessity'. He
traststhepoet's taskwith thatof the historian: the latter 'speaks ofwhat
has happened', and 'the poet ofwhat can happen'.107 The rules of the
Liverpool Cathedral competition stipulated the Gothic style, but
Lethaby rejected this in linewith his conviction thathistoric styleswere
forhistorians,whereas thepoet's taskwas to present freshmeanings and
a a
possibilities*.He interpretedGothic as way ofmaking rather than
style, and his design reflects what he considered to be an important
aspect of theGothic spirit of structural inventiveness (Fig. 16).108
The
roof was to consist of a folded concrete-shell structure? certainly a
14.LiverpoolCathedral, 1902,competitionentrybyW. R. Lethabyand others.
revelation of new possibilities for thismaterial. But, amultitude of ref?
Detail ofdecorative panel.
erences toChristian doctrine notwithstanding, exactly how the design
fitswithin its context is not very clear. Although thewest elevation
seems to be a reinterpretation of theGothic fusion of triumphal arch
with the battlements of heaven,109the flyingbuttresses are used as icons
rather than as structural elements.
The third category is the notion of type. In order to remove any sug?
? a sort of
gestion that type could be construed as fixed and invariable
Platonic ideal, Lethaby introduced a modifying concept, 'universal
architecture'. In the essay 'Morphology, Types and Classification', he
drew attention to the need for a morphology of building so that the
great building types and the elements of architecture could properly be
investigated.110Architects could draw upon this repository of inven?
tions ? all gradually perfecting the type and demonstrating its
? for their a
possibilities designs. Such systemwould enable the chal?
of new to be met and a new style to emergewithout
lenge building types
contrivance.111 The plan and form of Lethaby's cathedral design are
clearly derived fromBentley's Westminster Cathedral (Fig. 15).Itwas a
work that he much admired (though his enthusiasm waned somewhat
when the great concrete-domed structurewas covered with Byzantin?
esque decoration)112 and accepted as a prototype, making the tradition
at least 'two-men-wide'.

The fourth and final category is the origins of architecture, Lethaby's

nineteenth-century
Mysticism
15.Plans ofLiverpoolCathedral competitionentry(left)andWestminster
Cathedral,London, 1895-1902,byJ.F. Bentley(right).
lifelongpreoccupation. 'Arewe not always seeing our projects forbuild?
ing through a series of veils?' he wrote in 1904.113 He wanted to free
buildings of their superficial associations with history, the clutter of
revivalism. Significantly, one of his very lastwrit?
ingswas 'Architecture,Nature and Magic', a reworking ofArchitecture,
andMyth. The motive for these studieswas more than just a
fascination with symbolism; itwas to reveal the primary forces in the
evolution of architecture. Lethaby found two principal factors: 'the
response to need'114and the use of symbolism. He admired any building
thatwas done in 'the spirit of itshigh need', and even 'substantial cart
sheds and cow-houses' were admirable in so far as they were fitting
?
responses to a need although mere utility was not sufficient for the
more complex requirements and potential of human dwellings and,
unlike many of hisArts and Crafts compatriots, Lethaby did not regard
them as suitablemodels.115As I have indicated, Lethaby tended to defer
any discussion of contemporary symbolism, though perhaps he believ?
ed that a thingmade with due reference to its 'high firstneed' and with
a justuse ofmaterials would of itselfhave symbolic value.
Included in the rich symbolic programme of theLiverpool Cathedral
scheme is a reference to the origins of theChristian Church, the early
Christian symbol the ship of salvation, and, above the body of the

40 AA FILES 10
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
church, a figureof Christ, the founder of theChristian community, in 12. The Builder, 9November 1895,p. 329.
a small buttressed aedicule, the original sacred space. Lethaby did not 13. Ibid.
14. AA Notes (1896), pp. 127,161.
win the competition, but his scheme is a clear, though incomplete,
15. Ibid. (1895), p. 83; (1896), p. 171.
demonstration of the complexity of his vision of rational architecture as 16. Ibid. p. 203.
a rational structurewhich embodies an
appropriate and coherent pro? 17. H. Statham, Modern Architecture (1897), pp. 15,18.
gramme of symbolism (Fig. 17). 18. Ibid. p. 14.

Following the 'Modern Building Design' lectures, Lethaby was 19. AA Notes (1896), p. 125.
20. Ibid. p. 119.The lecture was fully reported in: 'The Problem of Architecture', The
appointed Director of theCentral School ofArts and Crafts and, in 1901,
Builder, 16October 1896,p. 379.
Professor ofOrnament and Design at theRCA, fromwhich time he 21. Ibid. pp. 134-5; (1897), p. 7.
concentrated on teaching and writing. A pamphlet he wrote in support 22. Ibid. p. 183.
of theDesign and Industries Association was translated and published 23. Op. cit. (Easter Issue Jubilee Number, 1897), p. 75.

by theDeutsche Werkbund.116 The only tangible evidence of any influ?
ence he may have exerted on theContinent, itprobably resulted from
his association with Muthesius, ofwhich, regrettably,we know so little.
Muthesius arrived inLondon in themidst of the debate provoked by
Lethaby's lectures, just one month after the opening of the Central
School (he described itas 'probably the best organised contemporary art
school'),117 and his stay coincided with the height of Lethaby's influ?
ence. His essay 'Stilarchitektur und Baukunst'
clearly refers to the
debate, and his laterbook Das Haus
englische attributes the revitalization
of English architecture to the pupils ofMorris and Shaw, among whom
he gives firstmention to Lethaby. Moreover, the book suggests an
intimacywith Lethaby and his circle. Lethaby may well have main?
tained contact with Muthesius when he returned to establish theWerk?
bund in 1907, for it isknown thathe travelled toGermany 'about half a
dozen times'.118 I suspect, however, that he would not have whole?
heartedly supported Muthesius's 'Propositions' which, by linking the
notion of typewith standardization {Typisier'ung),contributed to the
shiftof emphasis inArts and Crafts theory, enabling itsapplication to
machine production.
Lethaby certainly took a keen interest in European modernism,
24. Ibid.
25. J. Summerson, The Turn of theCentury (1976), pp. 3-5.
26. Several of his writings indicate that he had read Vitruvius, for example 'The Theory
of Greek Architecture', RIBA Journal, xv (1908), p. 213, and Form inCivilization, p.
9; Scamozzi, in 'ANational Architecture', The Builder, 29November 1918,p. 363;
Serlio, in 'Inigo Jones and the Theatre', Architectural Review, xxxi (1912), p. 189; and
Jones's annotated copy of Palladio's Quattro libri,Architectural Review, xxxi (1912),
p. 72.
xxxi (1912), p. 72.
27. Lethaby, 'Inigo Jones and the Theatre', ArchitecturalReview,
28. Lethaby, 'The Architecture of Adventure', RIBA Journal, xvii (1910), p. 432, reprinted
in:Form inCivilization.
29. D. S. Robertson called Lethaby's Greek buildings represented byfragments in theBrit?
ishMuseum (1908) a 'brilliant book' (The Times, 20 August 1931).David Watkin, in
accuses Lethaby of having dismissed the Renais?
Morality and Architecture (1977),
sance in
'barely eight pages' of his book Architecture (1911),but doesn't mention that
Lethaby's preference, French Gothic, is covered in only eleven pages of what was
intended as an introduction to architecture in the 'Home University Library' series.
30. Goodhart-Rendel, op. cit., p. 242.
31. A. Beresford-Pite, 'Some Tendencies of theModern School of Architecture', RIBA
Journal, vn (1900), p. 87.
32. Lethaby, Philip Webb and His Work (PWhereafter) (1979), pp. 63-86.One chapter is
entitled 'Some Architects of theNineteenth Century and Two Ways of Building'.
33. Lethaby, 'ANational Architecture', The Builder, 11
October 1918,p. 261.
34. Lethaby, Architecture, Mysticism and Myth (AMM hereafter), p. 177.

quoting Le Corbusier two years before thepublication of Vers une archi?
tecture.Later he commented on themaxim 'A house is a machine for
living in', suggesting that itwas in line with his own teachings but
lamenting the emphasis upon 'machine' rather than the 'living in'.119
He scornfully referred to theModern Movement as 'inverted archae?
35. These may well have been his Soane Medallion competition-winning design, illus?
trated inThe Builder, 4 April 1879. See: Schultz Weir, AA Journal, June 1957,p. 6, and
B. Thomas, RIBA Journal, lxiv (1957), pp. 218-19.
36. Lethaby, PW, p. 69.
37. R. Kerr, 'English Architecture Thirty Years Hence', reprinted in: Pevsner, Some
Architectural Writers of the 19thCentury (1972), p. 308.

ology',120a striking imagewhich recalls the contrasting aims and greater 38. A. Saint, Richard Norman Shaw (1976), p. 71.
39. Ibid. pp. 190,431.
scope of his own conception of rationalism. Yet, because of the super?
40. H. Masse, The Art Workers''Guild(1935), p. 8.
ficial resemblance of strategies,Lethaby has been adopted as a pioneer of
41. Schultz Weir, op. cit., p. 10; see also: M. Comino, Gimson and theBarnsleys (1980),
modernism. This is partly a result of the imbalance in his writings, pp. 50-66.
which stress themeans and fail to give a sufficientaccount of the end he 42. Lethaby, 'Design and Industry', inForm inCivilization, p. 47.

envisaged.Nevertheless, forLethaby a vision of architecturewhich glor? 43. Lethaby, AMM, p. 4.

ifiedthemachine and embraced industrialproduction would have been 44. Ruskin, The Seven Lamps ofArchitecture (1919), p. 7, and Lectures on A rchitecture and
Painting (1854), P-II2
impossible; indeed he declared that 'amachine-made thing can never be 45. Lethaby, AMM, p. 4.
awork of art in the proper sense'.121He could not dismiss the vital role
46. Similarly, Eliade relates that historical figures absorbed intomythology tend to lose
of history and tradition, and his principal aim was 'to reconcile again their individual characteristics (M. Eliade, The Myth of theEternal Return (1971),
Art with Science',122 to integrate theRomantic and theRational. pp. 34-8).
47. Lethaby, Architecture, Nature and Magic (1956), p. 15. In the first edition (1890) of
Frazer's The Golden Bough ? the one Lethaby would have read ? this notion per?
This article isdrawn largely from anM.Phil, thesis submitted to Essex University. I remain meates the text, but it received a fuller exposition in the abridged edition of 1922.
grateful tomy supervisor, Joseph Rykwert, for his guidance and many fruitful suggestions. 48. Lethaby, AMM, p. 4.
49. Lethaby, AMM, pp. 10,127-31.
Notes
50. Lethaby, A rchitecture,Nature and Magic, p. 136.
1. H. Goodhart-Rendel,
English A rchitecture Since theRegency (1953), p. 255. 51. Lethaby, AMM, p. 7.
2. R. Banham,
Theory and Design in theFirstMachine Age (i960), pp. 44-65. 52. Schultz Weir, op. cit., p. 11.The chapel Schultz Weir describes no longer exists, but he
included a similar pavement in his design for St Andrew's inWestminster
3. P. Davey, Arts and Crafts Architecture (1980), p. 60. See also: R. Macleod, Style and Chapel
Cathedral.
Society (1971); L. Lambourne, Utopian Craftsmen (1980); A. Service, Edwardian Archi?
tectureand itsOrigins (1975). 53. For example, the Church of theWisdom of God, Lower Kingswood, a Byzantine

4. Lethaby, 'Housing and Furnishing', inForm inCivilization Revival building which is an extraordinarily rich example of Arts and Crafts architec?
(1922), p. 36.
ture. Itwas a
5. The Builder, 2November 1895,p. 312. designed by Sidney Barnsley between 1890 and 1892,during timewhen
6. Ibid. 9November he and Lethaby were working together atKenton and Co. and Lethaby was preparing
1895,p. 325.
7. Ibid. 16November 1895,p. 360. Architecture, Mysticism and Myth. The church incorporates a suspended ostrich egg,
a
8. AA Notes (1895), pp. 92-3. symbol of creation which Lethaby describes in the final chapter of his book
9. Ibid. pp. 52-5. (Comino, op. cit., pp. 40-42). For further examples, see: J.Holder inW. R. Lethaby:
10. Ibid. p. 102. Architecture,Design and Education, edited by S. Backemeyer and T. Groneberg (1984),
11. Ibid. p. 112. pp. 59-62.

42 AA FILES 10
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
54- AA Notes (1889), p. 23. 95- Lethaby, 'The Theory ofGreek Architecture', RIBA Journal, xv (1908), p. 215.

55. Lethaby, AMM, p. 79. 96. Ibid.

'ANational Architecture', The Builder, 1November 1918,p. 280.
56. Lethaby, 'Cast Iron', Journal of theRoyal Society of'Arts (1890), p. 272. 97. Lethaby,
57. Lethaby, Morris as Workmaster (1902), p. 9. 98. Lethaby, Form inCivilization, pp. 122-3.
58. Lethaby, The Builder, 10March 1921,p. 379. 99. Lethaby did the competition with Schultz Weir, Halsey Ricardo, Henry Wilson,
59. Published inArchitecture: A Profession or an Art?, edited by R. Shaw and T. Jackson F. W. Troup, Stirling Lee and Christopher Whall. Apparently the design was

(1892). Lethaby's inspiration (Schultz Weir, op. cit., p. 11).

60. Published inCentury Guild Hobby Horse, vii (January 1892),pp. 1-14, just one month 100. Coleridge, The Friend (1818), section 2, essay 11.
after the publication ofArchitecture, Mysticism and Myth. 101. Lethaby, PW, p. 130.
61. Lethaby, Ernest Gimson: His Life and Work (1924), p. 4. 102. Lethaby, Morris as Workmaster, p. 15.
62. Ibid. pp. 3-4. 103. Lethaby, Architecture, Nature and Magic, pp. 18-20.
AA Notes (1889), p. 23.
63. In an address to theArt Workers' Guild on his sixty-fifthbirthday, Lethaby described 104. Lethaby, 'Of the "Motive" inArchitectural Design',
Morris and Webb (along with Ruskin and Shaw)
as his masters {The Builder, 105. G. Puttenham, The Arte ofEnglish Poesie (1869), p. 29.
19January 1922,p. 153).He described his relationship with Morris in an unpublished 106. Lethaby, Form inCivilization, p. 6; The Theory ofGreek Architecture, op. cit., p. 214.
lecture on Morris (MS inN. Devon Athenaeum): 'Although I
was never near enough 107. Aristotle, Poetics, edited by Else (1973), p. 32.
to him in age or size to be intimate, yet by certain accidents I happened to see a good 108. Lethaby, Architecture, pp. 200-204.
deal of him in the last ten years of his life'.Lethaby worked forMorris & Co. at Stan 109. Lethaby, 'The Uses ofAntiquity', The Builder, 1July 1921,p. 6.
more Hall in 1891, and probably met him earlier through his involvement in the no. Lethaby, 'Morphology, Types and Classification', The Builder, 1November 1918,
socialist movement. There is an intriguing letter fromMorris to Lethaby of 1889 in p. 279.
? in. It isnot clear how Lethaby was introduced to this form of analysis, although he may
which he says he will take him one day toWestminster Abbey to explain he does
not indicate what. Lethaby was as early as 1884, and it is have read Semper's manuscript at theVictoria and Albert Museum, for he frequently
attending lectures byMorris
or accept Morris's views earlier. worked there. Semper, 'Practical Art inMetals: ItsTechnology, History and Styles'
puzzling that he did not grasp
64. Lethaby, Ernest Gimson, p. 8. (MSFF64).
65. Lethaby, PW, p. 109. Lethaby recorded in his diary that on 15
November 1890 he saw 112. Lethaby, 'Westminster Cathedral', Architectural Review, xi (1902), p. 3.
'Architectural Education' Architectural Review, xvi (1904), p. 158.
Joldwynds, another Webb house with runs of gables. Lethaby, Ernest Gimson, p. 3. 113. Lethaby,
66. Lethaby, PW, p. 136. 114. Lethaby, Architecture, p. 18.
67. Ibid. p. 250.These quotations are taken from an appendix added to the second edition 115. Lethaby, 'Architectural Education', op. cit.
of the biography. 116. 'Design and Industry', Form inCivilization, pp. 46-55, translated as 'Englands Kunst:
68. Wordsworth and Coleridge, The Lyrical Ballads, edited by R. Brett and A. Jones (1963), Industrie und der Deutsche Werkbund'.

pp. 244,261. 117. Cited in: Pevsner, Academies ofArt Past and Present (194.0), p. 265.
69. Morris, 'The Revival of Architecture', inArchitecture, Industry and Wealth (1902), p. 118. Lethaby, 'Modern German Architecture andWhat We May Learn from It', lecture

199.He ends the sentence thus: 'the art of building has to deal with the prosaic inci? to theA A, January 1915 (reprinted inForm inCivilization, p. 97).
dents of every day life.' In a review ofMackail's Life ofWilliam Morris, Lethaby links 119. Lethaby, 'Modernism and Design', The Builder, 2December 1921,p. 749, and 'Engin?
Morris with theRomantic Movement {Quarterly Review (1899), p. 487). The theme eering and Architecture', The Builder, 9 January 1931,p. 54.
ofWebb's Romanticism pervades Lethaby's biography of him. For amore detailed 120. Lethaby, Scrips and Scraps (undated), p. 50.
discussion of this, see: T. Garnham, 'Crafts and theRevival ofArchitecture', inF. W. 121. Lethaby, 'Art andWorkmanship', inForm inCivilization, p. 210.
121. Lethaby, 'The Architecture of Adventure', op. cit., p. 94.
Troup, Architect, edited byN. Jackson (1985), pp. 75-90.
70. Lethaby, PW, p. 142.
71. Ibid. p. 136. Acknowledgements
72. Morris, 'The Prospects of Architecture inCivilisation', inOn Art and Socialism
2
(1947), p. 267. Figs. 2 (left), io (top): RIBA; Fig. (right):H. S. Goodhart-Rendel Collection, courtesy of
73. Ruskin, Modern Painters, vol. 2 (1903), pp. 249,224,251. AA Slide Library; Figs. 3,8,9 (below): National Monument Record; Figs. 6a, 10 (centre and

74. InModem Painters Ruskin refers the reader to Leigh Hunt's Fancy and Imagination bottom): courtesy of John Brandon-Jones; Figs. 6b-d, ii (centre), 12 (centre): Country Life;
for 'the filling up' of the subject (p. 254). However, in a letterof 1843 (quoted on p. 391 Fig. 9 (above): Committee for Scientific Collections, University Museum, Oxford;
of the editor's notes to the Library Edition ofModern Painters (vol. 2), he asks where 11(top), 12 (top): Trevor Garnham; Fig. 11 (bottom): drawing by Trevor Garnham;
Figs.
he might find an account of the dispute between Wordsworth and Coleridge over 12 (below):
Fig. drawing by John Brandon-Jones, reproduced fromA4 Journal,March 1949;
Fancy and Imagination. Fig. 13 (above): Architectural Press; Fig. 13(below): reproduced from Small Country Houses
75. Coleridge, Notebooks, cited in:Hill, Imagination inColeridge (1978), p. 69. ofToday, edited by Lawrence Weaver; Figs. 14,15 (left), 16,17: Victoria and Albert Museum;
76. Coleridge, Biographia Literaria (1965), p. 167. Fig. 15(right): drawing by A. S. G. Butler from his essay 'John Francis Bentley: The Archi?
77. Spengler, Man and Technics (1932), p. 41. tect ofWestminster Cathedral' (Burns & Oates, London, 1961).
78. Ruskin, Praeterita (1978), p. 117.
79. Ruskin, The Stones ofVenice (1851),p. 148.
80. See: K. Clarke, The Gothic Revival (1962), pp. 204-8, and Acland and Ruskin, The

Oxford Museum (1893), PP- 83-4.

81. M. Morris, William Morris: His Life, Work and Friends (1932), p. 9.
82. Lethaby, Form inCivilization, p. 68.

83. Lethaby, 'Modernism and Design', The Builder, 4 March 1921,p. 285.
84. He designed gesso-work decoration for the altar table of Prior's church {TheArchitect
p. 87).
(1890),
85. Cited in: Lethaby, PW, p. 77.
86. 'Specification ofMaterials forBrockhampton Church' (MS inRIB A Drawings Col?

lection). Lethaby's drawing depicting the purlinned scheme (roofed with tiles) was
on 25
approved by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners April. A rough working draw?
? oak concrete covered
ing dated 28May 1901 shows alternative sections purlins or
with thatch.

87. G. Rubens, 'The Life and Work ofW. R. Lethaby' (unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
London University, 1978), pp. 224-6.
88. Ibid.

89. Lethaby, 'Some Northamptonshire Steeples', Art Journal, August 1889,p. 227.
90. Lethaby, Form inCivilization, p. 118.
91. The lecture, 'The Architecture of Adventure', and the ensuing discussion were
xvn (1910), p. 478.
reported in theRIBA Journal,
92. G. Rubens, Introduction toAMM, p. xi.
93. Lethaby, The Church of Sancta Sophia (1894), p. 224.
94. Lethaby, 'Architectural Education', Architectural Review, xvi (1904), p. 158.

AA FILES 10 43

This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:25:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions