saves trouble, it always proclaims that melancholy truth. But where
something is designed because the designer liked doing it, and was
trying to please his own fancy instead of copying what a hundred other
men have done before, it will go hard but he will give some pleasure to
the spectator. It is from this blessed faculty that a design becomes
inspired with what is best described as "character." It is not the same
thing as style. I have something to say in my next lecture as to what I
think _style_ means, but it is certain that a building may have _style_
and yet want _character_, and it may have a good deal of _character_ and
yet be faulty or contradictory in _style_. We cannot define "character,"
but when we feel that it is present we may rely upon it that it is
because the designer took interest and pleasure in his work, was not
doing it merely scholastically--in short, he put something of his own
character into it, which means that he had some to put.

[Illustration: Figs. 1 through 3]

Now, coming back to the axiom before mentioned, that architectural
design should express and emphasize the practical requirements and
physical conditions of the building, let us look a little more in detail
into the manner in which this may be done. We will take, to begin with,
the very simplest structure we can possibly build--a plain wall (Fig.
1).[2] Here there is no expression at all; only stones piled one on
another, with sufficient care in coursing and jointing to give stability
to the structure. It is better for the wall, constructively, however,
that it should have a wider base, to give it more solidity of
foundation, and that the coping should project beyond the face of the
wall, in order to throw the rain off, and these two requirements may be
treated so as to give architectural expression to our work (Fig. 2). It
now consists of three distinct portions--a plinth, or base, a