1 William Richard Lethaby, ‘Housing and Furnishing', Athenaeum (May, 1920), reprinted in Lethaby, Form in Civilisation, Collected Essays on Art and Labour (Oxford, 1922), pp. 35–45 (pp. 37–38); ‘Education of the Architect', Informal conference, Royal Institute of British Architects (May 1917), reprinted in Lethaby, Form in Civilisation, pp. 122-32 (p. 123); ‘Architecture of Adventure', Royal Institute of British Architects (April 1910), reprinted in Lethaby, Form in Civilisation, pp. 66-95 (PP- 76-7%, 9°, 94); ‘What Shall we call Beautiful? A Practical View to Aesthetics', Hibbert Journal (April 1918), reprinted in Lethaby, Form in Civilisation, pp. 147-68 (p. 157); ‘Architecture as Form in Civilisation', London Mercury (1920), reprinted in Lethaby, Form in Civilisation, pp. 1-16 (pp. 8-9). A detailed discussion of Lethaby's conception of art and science and their synthesis is given in Deborah van der Plaat, ‘Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, William Lethaby and the foundation of a syncretic modernism’ (PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2000), chapter 5.

2 Gill, W. A., “The Origin and Interpretation of Myths', MacMillan's Magazine, 56 (1887), p. 121 Google Scholar. Max Müller, Friedrich, Introduction to the Science of Religion (London, 1873), p. 279 Google Scholar. Ruskin, , ‘The Queen of Air: Being a Study of the Greek Myths of Cloud and Storm’ (1869) in The Works of John Ruskin, ed. Cook, E. T. & Wedderburn, A. (London, 1903-12), vol. 19, p. 307n.Google Scholar

3 Richard Lethaby, William, Architecture, Mysticism and Myth (Bath, 1994), p. 16 Google Scholar. Originally published by Percival, London, 1891. It was reprinted the following year.

4 Ibid., pp. 13-14.

5 Lethaby, , Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, pp. 13–14 Google Scholar; Architecture, Nature and Magic (London, 1956), pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

6 Idem.

7 Some of the sources cited by Lethaby include: Lang, Andrew, Myth, Ritual and Religion (London, 1887)Google Scholar; SirTylor, Edward Burnett, Anthropology: An Introduction to the Study of Man and Civilisation (London, 1881)Google Scholar; SirLewis, George Cornwall, An Historical Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients(London, 1862)Google Scholar; Gould, Sabine Baring, Curious Myths of the Middle Ages (London, 1881)Google Scholar; Balfour, Frederick Henry, Leaves from my Chinese Scrap-book (London, 1887)Google Scholar; Fergusson, James, The Holy Sepulchre and the Temple at Jerusalem (London, 1865)Google Scholar; Carl Grimm, Jacob Ludwig, Teutonic Mythology, trans. Stallybrass, J. S, 4 vols (London, 1883-84)Google Scholar; SirFrazer, George James, The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion (London, 1890)Google Scholar; and Spencer, Herbert, The Principles of Sociology (London, 1876-96)Google Scholar. For a complete list of sources cited in Architecture, Mysticism and Myth see van der Plaat, , ‘ Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, William Lethaby and the foundation of a syncretic modernism', pp. 21–22.Google Scholar

8 The presentation of theory in the guise of history is a common strategy employed by Lethaby. See Okoye, Ikem. S., ‘William Richard Lethaby: A Reassessment', The Harvard Architectural Review, 7 (1989), pp. 100-15 (p. 101).Google Scholar

9 Lethaby, , Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, p. 16.Google Scholar

10 Architectural Association Notes, 6 (1891-92), p. 167 Google Scholar; The British Architect, 37 (1892), p. 21.Google Scholar

11 Holder, Julian, ‘ Architecture, Mysticism and Myth and its influence', in WRL Lethaby 1857-1931: Architecture, Design and Education, ed. Backemeyer, Sylvia and Gronberg, Theresa (London, 1984), pp. 56–63 (pp. 59-60).Google Scholar

12 The Builder, 2 January 1893, p. ix Google Scholar; The Times, 31 December 1892, p. 54.Google Scholar

13 Lethaby, William Richard, ‘Architecture, Nature and Magic', The Builder, 124 to 135 (1928-9).Google Scholar

14 Ibid., p. 15.

15 Idem.

16 Rubens, Godfrey, ‘The Life and Work of William Lethaby 1875-1931’ (PhD thesis, University College, London, 1977), p. 52 Google Scholar; Holder, , ‘ Architecture, Mysticism and Myth and its Influence', p. 63 Google Scholar; Holder, , ‘A Thought Behind Form: Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, and its Place in Architectural Theory 1880-1910’ (MA thesis, University College, London, 1986)Google Scholar; Garnham, Trevor, ‘William Lethaby and the Problem of Style in late Nineteenth-Century English Architecture’ (MA thesis, Exeter University, 1980), p. 61 Google Scholar; Naylor, Gillian, “The Myth of Modernism', in WR Lethaby 1857-1931: Architecture, Design and Education , pp. 42–48 (pp. 44-46)Google Scholar. See also Hart, Vaughan, ‘William Richard Lethaby and the “Holy Spirit.” A Reappraisal of the Eagle Insurance Company Building, Birmingham', Architectural History, 36 (1993), pp. 145–58 (pp. 155-56).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, Biographia Literaria, ed. Shawcross, J. (Oxford, 1907), vol. 1, p. 202 Google Scholar. For the role of the Victorian Imagination in Ruskin, see Garnham, Trevor, ‘William Lethaby and the Problem of Style in Later 19^th Century English Architecture', pp. 37–40 Google Scholar; van der Plaat, , ‘ Architecture, Mysticism and Myth (1891): William Lethaby and the Foundation of a Syncretic Modernism', pp. 27–60.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., chapter 4. Lethaby's thesis can also be interpreted as a response to the contemporary debate as to whether Architecture was an ‘Art’ — the representation of the Imagination, a creative faculty inherent within gifted individuals — or a ‘Profession’ — a set of skills that can be taught, and thus examined. These distinctions drawn between Art and the Profession established a conflict between architecture as a ‘Art’ or 'Science’ ( Shaw, Richard Norman, Architecture: A Profession or an Art. Thirteen Short Essays on the Qualification and Training of the Architect (London, 1892), p. xx Google Scholar). Lethaby's thesis seeks to resolve this dilemma.

19 van der Plaat, ‘Architecture, Mysticism and Myth (1891): William Lethaby and the Foundation of a Syncretic Modernism', chapter 5.

20 Lethaby's interest in the Hypnerotomachia is demonstrated in a series of diary entries, drawings and designs made over the period 1889-92: Rubens, , “The Life and work of William Lethaby', pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

21 van der Plaat, ‘Architecture, Mysticism and Myth (1891): William Lethaby and the Foundation of a Syncretic Modernism', chapter 3.

22 Lethaby, , Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, p. 13.Google Scholar

23 Idem.

24 Idem.

25 Lethaby, , Architecture, Nature and Magic, p. 10.Google Scholar

26 Lethaby, , Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, p. 14.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., p. 18.

28 Idem.

29 Idem.

30 Idem.

31 Idem.

32 Ibid., p. 17.

33 Ibid., p. 18.

34 Ibid., p. 21.

35 The terms subjective and objective are used here as meaning, respectively, knowledge which originated from the object world (nature) and from the subject (the mind or individual who seeks that knowledge).

36 Lethaby, , Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, p. 17.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., p. 18.

38 Ibid., pp. 22, 20.

39 Ibid., pp. 20-23.

40 Ibid., preface.

41 Ibid., p. 12.

42 Ibid., p. 14.

43 Ibid., p. 12. Lethaby's thesis appears to be a response to the dual approaches characterizing the writing of architectural histories emerging in Britain in the nineteenth century. The historian Friedrich Meinecke in 'Geschichte und Gegenwort’ (1933), has argued that the replacement of a static or cyclic idea of history, a conception common to Classical and Romantic world-views respectively, with a progressive model (historicism), one that has come to be associated with a modern world-view, spurred a complex response in modern culture. Seeking to define the direction of future practice (invention in a modern world), modern man did one of two things. Either he identified a single moment in the past and established it as a paradigmatic model for future practice; or, alternatively, he fled into the future, grounding practice in the spirit and achievements of the current epoch ( Mienecke, Friedrich, ‘Geschichte und Gegenwort', in Vom Geschkhtlichen Sinn und vom Sinn der Geschichte, 2nd edn (1939), pp. 14ff.Google Scholar). Meinecke's ‘flight into the future’ and ‘retreat into the past’ emerge in the architectural debates of nineteenth-century Britain in James Fergusson's An Historical Inquiry into the True Principle of Architecture (1849) and John Ruskin's The Seven Lamps of Architecture, of the same year ( Fergusson, James, A Historical Inquiry into True Principles of Beauty in Art More Especially in Reference to Architecture (London, 1849)Google Scholar; Ruskin, John, ‘Seven Lamps of Architecture’ (1849) in Works, vol. 8)Google Scholar. Acknowledging that it was no longer possible to favour one style over another — as it was now recognised that each style was organically tied to the specific epoch which had produced it — Fergusson and Ruskin respectively associated future practice with either the achievements of the present or those of the past. Fergusson's association of architecture with contemporary theories of the divided body and labour identified future practice in architecture, as the English architect and theorist C. R. Cockerell observed in his 1849 lectures, with the ‘muse of novelty, invention and progress'. Ruskin, on the other hand, seeking to reinstate the craft ethic of the medieval mason turned to ‘the muse of veneration, authority and antique association'. Lethaby's focus on both the universal (the imagined) and specific (known) merges the historical approaches promoted by Ruskin and Fergusson: (C. R. Cockerell, ‘Lecture on Style', 2 July 1849, British Architectural Library, Box 5, COC 1/94 cited in Peter Kohane, ‘C. R Cockerell's dream of history', in FIRM(ness) commodity DE-light?: questioning the canons, Papers from the 15th Annual Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians of Australia and New Zealand, ed. J. Willis, P. Goad & A. Hutson (Melbourne, 1998), pp. 141-47 (p. 145).

44 Lethaby, , Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, p. 18.Google Scholar

45 Ibid., p. 14.

46 Lethaby, , Architecture Mysticism and Myth, p. 14.Google Scholar

47 Ibid., p. 15.

48 Burstein, Janet, ‘Victorian Mythography and the Progress of the Intellect', Victorian Studies, 25 (1975), pp. 309-24 (p. 311)Google Scholar; Burstein's conclusions are based on Frank Manuel's earlier study of eighteenth-century thinkers, Manuel, Frank. E., The Eighteenth Century Confronts the Gods (New York, 1967).Google Scholar

49 Burstein, , ‘Victorian Mythography', p. 311 Google Scholar. Manuel has argued that this attitude to myth can also be detected in the ‘work of “progressist” historians like Turgot and Condorcet, whose idea of perfectibility always took for granted the notion of the benighted primitive'. The ‘rational’ orientation of these eighteenth-century writers can be extended to include Auguste Comte, as his doctrine of mental progress preserved a rational bias by assuming that positivistic, scientific thought was the chief goal of mental development. For Comte, as for the eighteenth-century progressists, stages in the progress of thought were seen as fixed points in an ascending order of progression. Manuel, , The Eighteenth Century Confronts the Gods, p. 208.Google Scholar

50 Burstein, , ‘Victorian Mythography', pp. 311–12.Google Scholar

51 Manuel, , The Eighteenth Century Confronts the Gods, pp. 288–89.Google Scholar

52 Ibid., p. 308. Burstein has argued this distinction demonstrates the division of ‘myth’ and ‘reason'. The implication of this division is that ‘myth’ is seen as being untrue, a product of the imagination, and thus of the subject or self, while ‘reason’ implies a knowledge extracted from outside the self, and thus possessing a greater validity or element of truth. Burstein, , ‘Victorian Mythography', p. 313.Google Scholar

53 Idem.

54 Kissane, James, ‘Victorian Mythology', Victorian Studies, 6 (1962), pp. 5-28 (p. 7).Google Scholar

55 Hewlett, Henry Gay, “The Rationale of Mythology', Cornhill Magazine, 35 (1877), pp. 407–23.Google Scholar

56 Kissane, , ‘Victorian Mythology', p. 7.Google Scholar

57 Idem.

58 Burstein, , ‘Victorian Mythography', p. 313.Google Scholar

59 Grote, George, History of Greece (New York, 1846), vol. 1, p. 43.Google Scholar

60 Gill, W. A., ‘The Origin and Interpretation of Myths', Macmillan's Magazine, 56 (1887), p. 121.Google Scholar

61 Müller, Karl Otfried, Introduction to the Scientific Study of Mythology, trans. Leitch, John (London, 1825), p. 19 Google Scholar. Müller, Lethaby cites in Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, pp. 131 and 157.Google Scholar

62 Burstein, , ‘Victorian Mythography', p. 315.Google Scholar

63 Sayce, A., The Principles of Comparative Philology (London, 1893), p. 313 Google Scholar. Lethaby cites Sayce in Architecture, Mysticism and Myth (p. 78).Google Scholar

64 Müller, Karl Ottfried, Introduction to the Scientific Study of Mythology, p. 49.Google Scholar

65 Mackay, Robert, The Progress of the Intellect, as Exemplified in the Religious Development of the Greeks and Hebrews (London, 1850), vol. 1, p. 215.Google Scholar

66 Pater, Walter, Greek Studies (London, 1895), pp. 147,100.Google Scholar

67 George Grote argued in ‘Grecian Legends and early history’ (1846) that the mode of cognition demonstrated by the mythic mind was of the past and could not be retrieved. He claimed that advances made in the positivist sciences amply compensated for the modern loss of the poetic imagination. Grote, George, 'Grecian Legends and Early History', Westminster Review, 49 (1846), p. 174.Google Scholar

68 Burstein, , ‘Victorian Mythography', p. 317.Google Scholar

69 Ibid., p. 322.

70 Ibid., p. 321; Kissane, , ‘Victorian Mythology', p. 17.Google Scholar

71 Ruskin, , ‘The Crystal Rest’ (1866) in Works, vol. 18, pp. 347–48.Google Scholar

72 Mackay, , The Progress of the Intellect, vol. 1, p. 3.Google Scholar

73 Ruskin, , ‘The Queen of Air: Being a Study of the Greek Myths of Cloud and Storm’ (1869) in Works, vol. 19, p. 307n.Google Scholar

74 Ruskin's belief that contemporary systems of representation divided what the mythic image reconciled was not only limited to his discussions of poetry, but is also found in his criticism of contemporary art. In his 1870 lecture on ‘The Relation of Art to Religion', Ruskin identified two different systems of representation as dominating nineteenth-century art. He labelled these the ‘realistic’ and ‘symbolic', arguing that they carried out ‘two distinct operations upon our minds’ ( Ruskin, , “The Relation of Art to Religion’ (1870), in Works, vol. 20, pp. 60–61 Google Scholar). In his lectures on The Art of England(1883), he explained that the ‘realistic’ concentrated on the accurate imitation of nature: ‘striving to put the facts before the readers’ eyes as positively as if he had seen the thing come to pass’ ( Ruskin, , ‘Mythic School of Painters’ (1883), Works, vol. 33, p. 288 Google Scholar). The strategy of the mythic painter, on the other hand, was to represent general ideas or concepts through arbitrary signs ( Ruskin, , 'Mythic Schools of Painting', Works, vol. 33, p. 293 Google Scholar). Ruskin identified both as being strategies that appeared independently in contemporary painting. In ‘The Relation of Art to Religion', Ruskin noted that this had not always been the case. In the ‘fine Greek art’ of the ancient world, ‘the two conditions of thought, symbolic and realistic’ had ‘mingled'. Thus, much in the same way that modern language had divided what the mythic symbol had united, modern art had divided what mythic art had ‘mingled’ ( Ruskin, , “The Relation of Art to Religion’ (1870), Works, vol. 20, p. 61).Google Scholar

75 Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 5th edn (London, 1706), vol. III, p. 5 Google Scholar & ‘epistle to the reader'; Locke's conclusions were based on an attacked of the conventional and Christian view that language was natural and divine, a nomenclature or inventory of creation divinely established by God and first given to men in the original state of Edenic innocence. Words, Locke argued, ‘come to be made use of by Men as the signs of their Ideas; not by any natural connexion, that there is between particular articulate Sounds and certain ideas for then there would be one language amongst all Men; but by a voluntary Imposition, whereby such a Word is arbitrarily the Mark of such an Idea. The use of words is to be sensible Marks of Ideas; and the Ideas they stand for, are there proper and immediate Signification’ (ibid., 11, p. 2).

76 Idem; Keach, William, ‘Romanticism and Language', in The Cambridge Companion to British Romanticism, ed. Curran, Stuart (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 95–119 (p. 99).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77 Locke, , An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, vol. III, x, p. 34.Google Scholar

78 Keach, , ‘Romanticism and Language', p. 99.Google Scholar

79 Wordsworth, William, The Prelude, 1799,1805, 1850, ed. Wordsworth, Jonathan, Abrams, M. H. and Gill, Stephen (New York, 1979), vol. 6, p. 593.Google Scholar

80 Wordsworth, William, Prose — The Prose Works of William Wordsworth, ed. Owen, W. J. B and Smyser, Jane, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1974), pp. 124,130.Google Scholar

81 Keach argues that in recognizing the arbitrary nature of words, Wordsworth was indebted to the empirical thesis of language established by Locke. In seeking to re-establish a ‘natural’ status of language, however, a thesis Locke rejected, Wordsworth's intentions must be interpreted as being romantic. Keach, , ‘Romanticism and Language', p. 107.Google Scholar

82 Wordsworth, , Prose, vol. 1, p. 148.Google Scholar

83 Ibid., p. 124.

84 Ibid., p. 123.

85 Connor, Steven, ‘Myth and Meta-myth in Max Müller and Walter Pater', in The Sun is God: Painting, Literature and Mythology in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Bullen, J. B. (Oxford, 1989), pp. 199–222 (pp. 206-07).Google Scholar

86 Müller, Friederich Max, Introduction to the Science of Religion (London, 1873), pp. 270–71.Google Scholar

87 Idem.

88 Ibid., pp. 271-72.

89 Connor, , ‘Myth and Meta-myth in Max Müller and Walter Pater', pp. 206–07.Google Scholar

90 Müller, F. M., Introduction to the Science of Religion, p. 268.Google Scholar

91 Ibid., p. 279.

92 Idem.

93 Lethaby, , Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, p. 16.Google Scholar

94 Roberts, A. R. N., William Richard Lethaby 1857-1931: A Volume in Honour of the School's First Principal (London, 1957), p. 74 Google Scholar. Lethaby, William, ‘What Shall We Call Beautiful?', pp. 155–56.Google Scholar

95 Lethaby, , Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, p. 11.Google Scholar

96 Lethaby, , ‘What Shall We Call Beautiful?', pp. 155–56.Google Scholar

97 Roberts, , William Richard Lethaby 1857-1931, p. 74.Google Scholar

98 Lethaby, , Architecture, Nature and Magic, p. 15.Google Scholar

99 Lethaby, unpublished notebook (n.d.), Central St Martin's Art and Design Archive, London, B. 4783.

100 Godfrey Rubens has described Lethaby's approach to myth as an ‘uncritical and inexpert’ survey of a 'rag-bag of first- and second-hand authorities'. Julian Holder, in agreement with Rubens, labels Lethaby's method as ‘magpie’ or ‘scissor and paste', noting that a key complaint by reviewers when the book was published in 1891 was the ‘multiplicity of examples … [which] make the book appear to be the production of a past age, when scholarship of the kind could be appreciated’ ( Rubens, W. R. Lethaby His Life and Work 1857—1931 (London, 1986), p. 83 Google Scholar; Holder, Julian, ‘ Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, and its influence', p. 58)Google Scholar.

101 Holder, Julian, “The Thought Behind Form', pp. 18, 22.Google Scholar

102 Garnham, , ‘William Lethaby and the Problem of Style', p. 50.Google Scholar

103 Holder, , “The Thought Behind Form', p. 22 Google Scholar; Garnham, , William Lethaby and the Problem of Style', pp. 54,58.Google Scholar

104 See note 7.

105 Lethaby, , Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, pp. 35, 55,130,142,147,161,199.Google Scholar

106 Ibid., preface and pp. 15, 21,19, 35, 68,93,104,133,135,139.

107 Connor, , ‘Myth and Meta-myth in Max Müller and Walter Pater', pp. 199–202 Google Scholar. For Ruskin's debt to the Comparative School, and to Müller in particular, see Birch, Dinah, Ruskin's Myths (Oxford, 1988), p. 40.Google Scholar

108 Burstein, , ‘Victorian Mythography', p. 317.Google Scholar

109 Lethaby, , “The Architecture of Adventure', p. 94.Google Scholar

110 Grote, George, History of Greece, vol. 1, p. 340.Google Scholar

111 Lethaby, , Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, p. 16.Google Scholar

112 Idem.

113 Müller, , Introduction to the Science of Religion, p. 279.Google Scholar

114 Ibid., pp. 268, 278.

115 Dinah Birch has argued that Ruskin's reading of myth as physical, moral and personal can be attributed to the thesis developed by Müller in Comparative Mythology (1856). Birch has argued that three important events motivated Ruskin's interest in myth: Müller's essay, a renewed experience of Turner, and a crisis in Ruskin's religious thought. Ruskin and Müller were at Oxford at the same time and there is little doubt that they discussed the issue of myth. Connor has argued that Müller's method and conception of language and myth found its clearest expression in the 1856 essay ‘Comparative Mythology’ (London, 1856). He also demonstrates that the central thesis of this text and its latent contradictions emerge more clearly in the later 1873 Introduction to the Science of Religion ( Birch, , Ruskin's Myths, p. 40 Google Scholar; Connor, , ‘Myth and Meta-myth in Max Müller and Walter Pater', p. 202 Google Scholar).

116 Lethaby presents this practice of imitation as being common to all artistic acts: ‘If we trace the artistic forms of things, made by man, to their origin, we find a direct imitation of nature. The thought behind a ship is the imitation of a fish. So to the Egyptians and Greeks the ‘Black Ship’ bore traces of this descent, and two eyes were painted on the brow … the eyes are given, it is said, to enable the ship to see its way over the pathless sea’ ( Lethaby, , Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, pp. 13,14Google Scholar).

117 Lethaby promotes a dual rather then tripartite structure for myth. He rejected the Greek process of personification arguing that it veils and confuses the original meaning (ibid., p. 14).

118 Lethaby, notebook (n.d), Central St Martin's Art and Design Archive, London, B. 4783.

119 Lethaby, , Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, pp. 35,55,130,142,147,161,199Google Scholar. As noted previously, Connor has argued that Müller's method and conception of language and myth found their clearest articulation in 'Comparative Mythology'. The central thesis of this essay and its latent contradictions where developed further in the later Introduction to Science(1873).

120 Lethaby fails to discuss Ruskin's or Müller's essays in depth. Rather, he simply extracts an image or example and acknowledges the source of his information. This is an approach he adopts for the majority of his sources.

121 Müller, , Introduction to the Science of Religion, pp. 206–07, 268.Google Scholar

122 A paper on this topic is presently under preparation by the author.

123 Rubens, , William Richard Lethaby. His Life and Works, pp. 118,164,167-68Google Scholar; Holder, , ‘ Architecture, Mysticism and Myth and its influence', pp. 56–63 Google Scholar; Hart, , ‘The Eagle Insurance Building, Birmingham', pp. 145–58Google Scholar; Garnham, Trevor, Melsetter House (London, 1933).Google Scholar

124 Avon Tyrrell, Christchurch, Hampshire, 1891, a country house built for Lord Manners. See Rubens, , William Richard Lethaby, His Life and Works, pp. 111–21.Google Scholar

125 Ibid., p. 164.

126 Idem.

127 The Eagle Insurance Buildings, Colmore Row, Birmingham, 1900. See Rubens, , William Richard Lethaby, His Life and Works, pp. 140–44.Google Scholar

128 Holder, , ‘ Architecture, Mysticism and Myth and its influence', p. 59.Google Scholar

129 Ruskin, , “The Nature of Gothic', Works, vol. 10, pp. 198–99Google Scholar; Lethaby, , ‘Architecture as Form in Civilisation', pp. 1,6 and 7.Google Scholar

130 Ruskin, , “The Nature of Gothic', Works, vol. 10, p. 204 Google Scholar; William Lethaby, ‘Political Economy or Productive Economy', Arts and Crafts Society, 23 November 1915, reprinted in Lethaby, Form in Civilisation, pp. 188-200 (p. 196); ‘Art and Workmanship’ Imprint (January 1913), reprinted in Lethaby, Form in Civilisation, pp. 208-13 (p. 210).

131 Ruskin, , ‘Stones of Venice’ (1851-53), vol. 11 (1853), Works, vol. 11, p. 119 Google Scholar; ‘Modern Painters', vol. iv (1856), Works, vol. 6, p. 42 Google ScholarPubMed; Letter to Brown, Revd W. L. on 28 September 1847, Works, vol. 36, p. 80 Google Scholar. Ruskin, , ‘Modern Painters', vol. II (1846), chapters 1-4, Works, vol. 4, pp. 223–313 Google Scholar; Lethaby, , ‘Art and Workmanship', p. 209 Google Scholar; William Lethaby, ‘The Foundation in Labour', Highway, March 1917; reprinted in Lethaby, Form in Civilisation, pp. 214–25 (pp. 216 and 217)Google Scholar; ‘Town Tidying', address to the Arts and Crafts Society, November 1916, reprinted in Lethaby, Form in Civilisation, pp. 17–21 (p. 17)Google Scholar; ‘Exhibitionism at the Royal Academy and Higher Criticism of Art', Hibbert Journal, June 1920, reprinted in Lethaby, Form in Civilisation, pp. 169-82 (p. 180).

132 Ruskin, , “The Nature of Gothic', Works, vol. 10, pp. 192, 204.Google Scholar

133 All Saints’ Church, Brockhampton, Ross-on-Wye, 1902. See Rubens, , William Richard Lethaby, His Life and Works, pp. 154–59.Google Scholar

134 Hart, , “The Eagle Insurance Building, Birmingham', p. 153.Google Scholar

135 The closest Lethaby came to achieving such goals was in the All Saints’ project in Brockhampton where he experimented with the direct labour method, a system which actively recruited the labourer, mason and craftsman into the design process. The failure of the project — the church suffering from a number of structural faults including a collapsed arch and sinking foundations — is often given as the reason Lethaby retired from practice on the completion of this project.

136 Lethaby, , Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, p. 12.Google Scholar

137 Lethaby, , Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, p. 12 Google Scholar. Much in the same way that the ‘known’ in the ‘temple idea’ revealed the extent of mythic man's understanding of the world around him, references to a scientific world view in modern architecture — be they references to scientific theories of knowledge, modes of production, systems of construction, or use of modern materials — allowed the built artefact to speak of its own time and place. Only ‘science', Lethaby argued, identified the ‘characteristic note’ of the ‘age’ ( Lethaby, , Phillip Webb and his Work (London, 1979), p. 63 Google Scholar). For Lethaby the ‘living stem of building-design', the continuing evolution which ensured a new and modern architecture, could only be maintained by ‘following the scientific method’ ( Lethaby, , ‘Architecture of Adventure,’ pp. 94–95 Google Scholar).

138 Hart, , “The Eagle Insurance Building, Birmingham', p. 153.Google Scholar

139 Ibid., p. 156.