1839.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL 



127 



RALPH IlEDIVIVU S.— No. XV. 



THE YORK COLUM>f. 



The aspect of the planets hapi)ens now to be so favourable, if not 

 to monumental columns at least to discussion relative to them, that 

 perhaps I cannot possibly do better than make choice of the York 

 column for my pi-esent subject. 



Notwithstanding the force of classical authority it seems now to 

 be admitted by a great many that an insulated pillar, more especially 

 one borrowed from any of the orders employed in the construction of 

 buildings, has no very great propriety to recommend it, it being 

 offensive, because quite unmeaning, when detached from that of 

 which it forms merely a portion, and apart from which it is conse- 

 quently no more than a fragment, while, as the support of a monu- 

 mental statue, it is most injudicious, because it necessarily elevates 

 the figure so greatly that little is to be discerned of it, except its 

 mass alone. Neither can this inconvenience be counteracted by in- 

 creasing the size of the statue, because the column itself must be 

 increased correspondingly, or else the other will appear out of all 

 proportion to it, and extravagantly large. Thus in order to be pro- 

 perly seen at that height from the ground the statue of the Duke 

 of York ought to be, at least, twice its present dimensions, more 

 especially as, so placed, the object requires to be viewed at a distance 

 exceeding its elevation from the ground, since otherwise it will be 

 beheld too much foreshortened. 



In regard to the column itself, it is the least eligible that could 

 have been made use of for such purpose ; because so far from having 

 anything whatever to recommend it as an ornamental object it is 

 utterly destitute of embellishment, not very pleasing in contour, and 

 what few mouldings and members it has serve only to make us feel 

 all the more sensibly the extreme dryness, stiffness, and poverty of 

 the ensemble. Capital it can hardly be said to have anj-, the part 

 intended as such finish being little more than a clumsy-looking 

 square platform with an iron railing, above which the shaft of the 

 column is continued, forming the cippus or circular pedestal, on 

 which the statue is i)laced. The rails just mentioned may be termed 

 light, but then so far from contributing to the idea of lightness, 

 in the favourable sense of the term, they rather produce actual 

 paltriness of appearance, having no more dignity nor beauty than the 

 wires of a birdcage. Surely, in such cases, where an external gallery 

 above the column is made a sine qua non, it would be infinitely better 

 to deepen and hollow out the abacus itself, making its sides answer 

 the purpose of parapets ; or, which would be still better, there 

 might be a gallery within the capital, the latter having ornamental 

 apertures sufficiently large for a person to put out his head and look 

 down while standing in perfect security. Certainly an external 

 gallery, unless masked so as not to show itself, is a blemish, and in 

 itself rather adds to than at all diminishes the general solecism of 

 employing a column where it seems a tower is wanted. Otherwise 

 than as a belvedere, from which the surrounding prospect may be 

 beheld, a gallery upon the abacus is useless; for as to seeing the 

 statue itself from that situation it is perfectly out of the cjuestion, 

 while it requires some degree of nerve to attempt to get a glimpse of 

 it by leaning back against the railing. 



Another great disadvantage attending the practice of surinoiniting 

 a monumental pillar by a railing, which thougli slight even to 

 paltriness in itself gives the capital a strangely encumbered look, is 

 that it requires the statue to be raised much higher above the 

 capital than there would else be occasion for; and it would, I conceive, 

 be greatly better in all such cases were the figtn-e raised no higher 

 above the capital than what would allow the w hole of it to be seen 

 from below, under an angle of 45 degrees, or, perhaps, somewhat 

 nearer. Instead of being hoisted on an excrescence built up above 

 the capital, the statue would then appear to stand almost imme- 

 diately upon the latter, which it ought to be made to do as nearly 

 as possible. 



Although comparatively unimportant as to size, how imposing as 

 to character and ell'ecl are the two granite pillars on the Piazzetta at 

 Venice, and how greatly would their dignity be impaired were they 

 surmounted by anything besides the figures they respectively sup- 

 port. In fact, those are veritable columns ; not hollow constructions, 

 made to resemble them, but solid monolithic pillars, and inferior 

 only, perhaps, to such enormous monoliths as Pompey's Pillar and 

 the Alexander Column at St. Petersburgh, whose heights arc respec- 

 tively 80 and 84 feet, but the latter of far greater magnitude than 

 the other, owing to its diameter being so much stouter. 



Whatever be its appearance to the eye, a tower built to resemble a 

 column can hardly affect the imagination so strongly as a solid shaft 

 of equal or even lesser dimensions ; it would, therefore, be perliaps 

 advisable not to let the hollow shaft proclaim itself as such, but to 

 omit, as far as possible, every indication of its being so, and not to let 

 No. 19.— Vol. II.— Aprjl, 1839. 



it be seen that that it is a lofty circular tower, surmounted by a 

 square, overhanging platform. If there must be an abacus, or some- 

 thing answering to"it, surely, instead of the usual square member, it 

 would be better to substitute a circular one. In columns, the 

 square abacus has great beauty and and propriety, its office being to 

 afford a broad surface, on which the architrave rests ; but, with 

 regsird to a monumental pillar, the case is widely different, that 

 having no horizontal mass to sustain. I may here quote Hosking, who 

 speaking of the IVIonument and the lofty shot-tower by the south- 

 west angle of Waterloo-bridge, says — " They are both of cylindrical 

 form ; but the one is crowned by a square abacus, and the other by 

 a bold cornice which follows its own outline (i. e., of the tower) ; the 

 greater simplicity and consecpient beauty of the latter, is such as to 

 strike the most unobservant." The contrast here objected to between 

 the shaft and abacus, is certainly not unpleasing in itself, quite the 

 contrary ; yet although such combination is both agreeable and 

 appropriate, where the abacus is no more than a member of detail, 

 it becomes almost an incongruity, when the whole is so magnified that 

 the single square stone slab placed on the column to receive the 

 architrave, becomes a terrace or platform, whose angles overhang the 

 the circular structure on which it is raised. 



The utmost that can be urged in extenuation of such enormity is, 

 that it is in strict adherence to classical precedent. The York 

 Column, however, might very well have been allowed to deviate from 

 precedent in that respect, since it dilTcrs most widely from its proto- 

 type, precisely where resemblance to it would have been a merit — 

 namely, its monumental character as an historic trophy. While it is, 

 architecturally, an imitation of the Trajan column, it is utterly 

 devoid of all that gives niiignificence and grandeur to this latter; 

 neither does it offer anything whtitever in lieu of the embellishment 

 thus omitted by wholesale. Instead of having anything ornamental 

 in its character, of displaying richness of any sort, or in any degree, 

 it is stamped by the most chilling blankness, the most parsimonious 

 plainness. Conse(iuently, it is little less than a positive absurdity ; 

 for surely absurdity it nmst be allowed to be, to erect what, as a 

 structure', is perfectly useless, and, at the same time, mean, and so 

 far disgraceful as a work of art. Yet ugly Brobdignagian columns 

 of this description are now stuck about in many parts of England and 

 Scotland ; and Glasgow and Kdinbtu-gh have their full share of them. 

 To say that we build as fine things of the kind as the funds raised 

 for them will permit, is no excuse, although our inability to erect 

 anything better than what we hitherto have done, would be a most 

 sensible plea for not building anything of the kind again. Nothing 

 is more contemptible or more ridiculous than the blundering mixture 

 of prodigality and parsimony we generally witness on similar occa- 

 sions. With just enough to" provide a statue and its pedestal upon a 

 scale of grandeur, our ambition is satisfied with nothing less than 

 hoisting np the figure, and perching it upon a gawky, unmeaning 

 column, as plain as a post. Supposing the shaft of such colunm to 

 be fluted, that docs not at all mend the matter ; because, when so 

 preposterously enlarged, the fluting itself becomes only an absur- 

 dity. Almost as well miglit we think to decorate the front of a 

 building by striating or fluting it with channels, as to adopt them 

 quite contrary to what taste or propriety would naturally dictate, 

 for a cylindrical shaft forming a slender tower; surely the far more sen- 

 sible mode would be, to form narrow, slightly projecting styicv, having 

 the appearance of strengthening the shaft, instead of scooping out 

 hollows to weaken it. 



As far as the York Column is concerned, no fault of the kind can 

 be alleged against it, it being totus, teres, altjuc rotundus, without 

 channel or wrinkle, hollow or projection to break the uniformity of 

 its surface. It is perfectly innocent of fancies or whims, of bas- 

 reliefs, twisted a la corkscrew, after the fashion of both Home and 

 Paris ; that is, of the Trajan and its two imitations, the Colonne 

 Vendoine, and the Colonne de .Juillet. 



So f;u- from having any decorations, it has nothing whatever to 

 indicate its purpose. To be sure, there is a figure on the top of it, 

 which may be that of the Duke of York, but then it might serve as 

 well for the Duke of Wellington, or for Sir Walter Scott, since there 

 are no symbols nor other marks by which this monument can be 

 recognized as that of a military m;ui. But what most of all surprises 

 me is that those fastidious critics who discern such outrageous absur- 

 dity in the fine campanile of St. George's Bloomsbury, on accoun i 

 of the statue which furnis so picturesque and graceful a termina- 

 tion to the whole mass, can so quietly put up with the infinitely 

 oreater absurdity of sticking what is not intended as an ornamental 

 accessory, on the to)) of a pillar, without any pretensions to beauty in 

 itself, and erected, it would seem, merely, that the effigy of the 

 person so honoured, may be seen to the utmost disadvantage. Where- 

 fore their taste should be so excessively scandali.'?l?8 by the lesser 

 absurdity of the two, it is for them to explain.— But stop; a young 



