1&2 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[May, 



tliat tlie Toid of the great arcli would contain eight Temple-bars, lliat 

 is, four placed one behind the otiier, and as many above them. How 

 jirodigious then must bo the entire mass ! Here again we may have 

 recourse to comparison, and when we state that the height of this mass 

 of architecture is only about twenty feet lower than that of the spire 

 of St. Martin's cliurcli (measured from the strtet pavement), and 

 that the clock of the latter would just be on a line with the arciiitr.ive 

 of the Arc de I'Etoil.', something like a feeling' of astonishment will be 

 I'xcited. 



It \voidi! be inteve-ting to delineate this monument, and s.ime of our 

 own edifices drawn to the same scale; and were we to do so with 

 regard to the Strand front of Somerset-house, we should tind that even 

 in width, it is less tluin the edifice at Paris, and that, tl]0uj;h composed of 

 an oi deriin a lofty hascnient, its cornice is not quite so high as the gioups 

 of scidpturc placed on each side of the arch. Consequently, in this 

 cast, »c should have to imagine more than another mass equal to the 

 iStranii building- of Somerset-place, reared above the one we now 

 behold. If we take the Banqueting-house, Whitehall, one of the loftiest 

 of our buildings, f xrlnsive of such structurfs as steeples and spires, 

 we tind that it is not higher than the impost of the aich, which being' 

 the case, it is easy to judge how diminutive even the Railway terminus 

 in Eustoii-square would appear by the side of this colossal pde, the 

 lop of its pediment being about six feet lower than the Banquetin ;'- 

 house. It is true we have several fagades (among' others, that of the 

 Post-office), which, in aere length, greatly surpasses the structure we 

 are sjicaking of; but they are altogether difi'erenl in character — display 

 nothing- of the same mass, or of the same scale of magnitude, being 

 ])roduced merely b\ co?>limmtio>t, w ithout any aiuplificiition of the parts 

 Iheniselves. Hi-re every thing is on the most gigantic scale, the very 

 bas-reliefs in the panels being equal to one entire side of a large room ; 

 while each of the four piers formed by the two smaller arches inter 

 secting- the large one transversely in the plan, is equal to a very lofty 

 house, w ith a frontage of 50 feet one way, and '25 the other. 



RALPH REDIVIVUS.— No. XVI. 



THE riMLICO LITERARY I \ STITUTti ).\, EUUBY STREET. 



In making choice of this building, for my present article, it is not so 

 much with the intention of confining myself to it for my subject, as 

 with that of taking it as a theme upon which I may enlarge with 

 respect to one peculiarity in it. Very probably some of my readers 

 may have never heard of it before, and will therefore wonder not a 

 little that I should condescend to Waste any words upon a piece of 

 such utter obscureness ; and among them there may be those who will 

 give me credit for being wicked enough to drag it forth into notice, 

 for no other purpose than that of unsparingly ridicuhng some poor 

 abortive attempt at design which every body else would consider to be 

 beneath criticism. 



It must be confessed, the building itself has notliing at all in it to 

 arrest the attention of persons in general, more than any thing else of 

 the saine kind and size ; nor is it at all improbable that many have 

 passed it without even so much as noticing the peculiarity for the 

 sake of which it is that I am chiefly induced to speak of it. In the 

 general elevation there is little remarkable, it being little more than a 

 pleasing composition in the Grecian Doric style;— a distyle in antis, 

 with a lower and narrotver lateral portii.n or wing on each side of the 

 loggia. Although, as far as decoration is concerned, these last- 

 mentioned parts contiibute little or nothing to the design, they have 

 considerable value in it, both by giving character to it, and by pro- 

 ducing an agreeable contrast of solid and void, and light and 

 shade. It is to the hack-ground behind the external elevation, — to 

 the inner part of the loggia we must look for that which confers no- 

 velty on this small f;i(,'ade, and distinguishes it from every thing else of 

 its kind ; namely, the screen or low wall carried up little higlier than 

 the doorway placed in it; besides which the light is partially admitted 

 at the sides or ends of the loggia between small square pillars, placed 

 on the level of the top of the screen. Few and simple as they are, 

 these circumstances impart to the whole a newness, a playfulness and 

 picturesqueness of appearance that may be pronounced almost 

 fascinating, when compared with the unvaried sameness that pervades 

 all our imitations of Grecian architecture, and allows of no other 

 diversity than what arises from the order employed, and its accompanying 

 details. It is true, the facade porticos of the Greeks themselves exhibited 

 so very little variety that they may be described as all of them conforming 

 to one common established model, withoutother distinctions than those 

 attending the columns and entablature, and the greater and lesser 

 number of the former. Vet this constant repetition of one and the 

 samt idea merely a little differently modified, was not, I conceive, so 

 much a merit as a defect in Grecian architecture; nor is it any 

 satisfactory argument to the contiary to say, that, considered indi- 



vidually, each example was excellent. We may have too much, even 

 of a good thing: toujours perdrix is a most nnpalateable dish. 



It is owing to this monotony that now its first novelty is worn away, 

 the Grecian style has of late begun to be abandoned for others. Instead 

 of endeavouring to infuse greater variety and freedom into it, onr 

 architects have practically abridged its tether still more, and reduced its 

 orders to mere stereotype fac-siniilies of certain examples ; whereas, 

 although adhering almost without exception to one uniform plan, even 

 the Greeks allowed themselves some little liberty in regard to matters 

 of detail : nay, so far are we from aimingat any fresh combinations 

 resulting from plan, that I cannot call to recollection any one portico, 

 where inner columns have been placed behind those in front, for 

 which at least there is sufficient precedent in Grecian buildings to 

 satisfy the most timid and scrupulous. So far then we may be said 

 rather sedulously to shun what is almost the only source of variety, or 

 if not the only, the chief one in Grecian architecture ; reducing every 

 design for a portico to a mere line of columns before a wall, with no 

 other difference than what is occasioned by there being windows or 

 not, or by there being either a single door, or a principal and lesser 

 ones. All that is done beyond this consists in occasionally making the 

 portico recede within the building, cis well as project from it ; of which 

 we have instances in those of the Post-office and the London Uni- 

 versity. At that point we stop. 



One solitary example, however, of a single step further being taken, 

 does now occur to me, and it is that furnished by the interior of the 

 portico of the National Gallery, where there are two columns within 

 the break or recess containing the central doorway ; yet, although as 

 far as it goes, this circumstance alone produces considerable richness, 

 it hardly shows itself from without, until we begin to ascend the steps ; 

 because, owing to the portico being so elevated, it is almost concealed 

 from the spectator when he is close to it, while seen at a distance 

 all between the outer columns is veiled in obscurity. 



With no more than these two instances before us, viz., the National 

 Gallery and the Pimlico Institution, it is easy to perceive what various 

 modifications and combinations might be obtained ; the variety at- 

 tending the former being that given to the horizontal lines or ground- 

 plan, while in the other case, it lies in the section or vertical plan, 

 both which species of variety might be resorted to, wherever a more 

 piquant effect than would be attainable oy employing only one of 

 them was aimed at. 



In order to render this more intelligible by something like direct 

 exemplification of the principle recommended, — and unless I do so 

 people will hardly beat the pains of giving it any serious consideration — 

 I will here briefly point out one or two of the numerous combinations 

 that may be obtained as soon as we break through the dull and weari- 

 some fashion of placing one unifoim plain wall behind columns, whose 

 blankness is interrupted merely by the entrance or entrances. After 

 admitting the screen in its simplest form — in which it presents itself 

 at the Pimlico Institution ; the next step would be to bestow some 

 decoration on it, and to place cither a statue or large bust in the 

 centre over the doorway. It still remains, however, a simple screen, 

 dividing the lower part of the portico into an inner and an outer one. 

 We must not stop here, or if we do we shall lese not only that variety 

 which serves to distinguish one design for another, but also those con- 

 trasts and complex effects which may be brought into a single design. 

 It will be desirable therefore to admit square columns behind those in 

 front, between the lower part of whose shafts the screen would be in- 

 serted ; another mode would be to employ columns, placing them either 

 immediately before ®r behind the screen, and eccasionally to combine 

 both modes, letting columns be seen beyond it, as well as in front of it ; 

 other variations present themselves in regard to the screen itself, since 

 it does not follow that it must needs be of uniform height throughout — 

 for whether it be divided into inter-columns or not, it may rise up in the 

 centre where the entrance is placed, so that its fascia shall there coin- 

 cide with the 'cornice of the doorway. Neither is there occasion that 

 such screen should invariably be carried the width of the inner elevation 

 of the portico : on the contrary, it might sometimes be confined to 

 the centre, or vice versa ; the doorway, in the latter case, being placed in 

 a wall carried up to the soffit of the general architrave. Light, again, 

 mightoccasionally be thrown upon the part seen beyond the screen, either 

 from the side or from above ; which would certainly greatly enhance the 

 effect, and produce that kind of display of which we have as yet no 

 instance whatever ; and if I may be allowed the liberty of pointing 

 out a portico where something of this kind could have been intro- 

 duced without coing at all out of the way in order to obtain it, I would 

 refer to the portico of the Post-office, where had the compartmentin 

 which the great door is placed been separated from the hall merely by 

 a screen carried upas high as the consoles against the jambs of that 

 doorway, — which would have been even more economical than the 

 present wall, — the upper p.-.rt of the hall and its columns would have 



