1848.1 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



65 



CANDIDUS'S NOTE-BOOK 

 FASCICULUS LXXIX. 



" I must have liberty 

 M'itlial, as Urge a charter u- the winds, 

 To Mow on whom I please.'* 



I. There is reason for conclutlinop that the peripteral temples of 

 the Greeks were so planneil rather for the sake of architectural 

 dignity and effect, than, as is jrenei-ally supposed, for that of 

 any particular convenience or advantajje. The cella itself being 

 narrow, colonnades along its sides served to give greater importance 

 to the edifice by enlarging its entire bulk, its ends or fronts being 

 increased from tetrastyle to hexastyle, or from hexastyle to 

 octastyle, if the latei"al colonnades consisted of only a single range 

 of pillars; or if the columniation was of the kind called dipteral, 

 increasing the widtli of the fronts by four more columns beneath 

 their pediments : thus, a cella, with a tetrastyle in front of it, would 

 acquire an octastyle portico, by having dipteral colonnades erected 

 along its sides. This last-mentioned mode (the dipteral) certainly 

 does provide a greater sheltered-in space on the sides of tlie 

 edifice; still, hardly sufficient for any real use of it as an ambula- 

 tory — at least, not for a number of persons. Such purpose was far 

 better accomplished by the pseudo-dipteral plan, in which the 

 middle row of columns, or those between the external ones and the 

 walls of the cella, were omitted, whereby a clear space was ob- 

 tained equal to the width of two intercolumns and one column. 

 Yet, if much was thereby gained in point of convenience, not a 

 little was lost in regard to effect and richness of character ; and 

 the body of the temple showed as a comparatively diminutive 

 structure, standing within an open though covered colonnaded 

 inclosure. As to the single peripteral, its colonnades must have 

 been more for show than for real service, since they were very ill- 

 calculated for accommodating a multitude of persons. Even in 

 the Parthenon, the clear space between the external columns and 

 the walls of the cella was not more than six feet wide; consequently 

 a mere jiassage, rather than either an ambulatory or a shelter for a 

 large concourse of people. 



il. AVith regard to the Parthenon, a most extraordinary error 

 occurs in the English edition of Gailhabaud's "Ancient and Mo- 

 dern Architecture" (second series), it being there stated that " its 

 length, measured on the top of the steps, is 114. feet, its width 

 51 feet;" according to which, the area of the building is not above 

 one-fourth of what all other accounts make it, for they make it 

 both twice as long and twice as wide ! To puzzle us the more, tliere 

 is a foot-note calling particular attention to those measurements, 

 from which it would seem that pains had been taken to insure 

 more than usual accuracy, they being there said to be upon the au- 

 thority of a " recent" — and therefore, it is to be presumed, a more 

 correct — measurement by Mr. Travers. Yet, no notice is taken of 

 the enormous disci-epancy between them and the usually-reported 

 dimensions, or of the equal discrepancy from the plan and its 

 scale given in the work itself. The scale being in metres — to 

 which one in English feet should ha\e been added to the plates in 

 the English edition — the contradiction between the text and en- 

 graving is not so immediately obvious as it would else be ; but, on 

 applying compasses and calculation, we find the length to be 

 69 metres and the breadth 51, which converted into English mea- 

 sure, give 226 and 101 feet respectively, or double wliat is stated 

 in the text ! Had either the English writer or editor compared 

 the description and plan together, their total want of agreement 

 must have been discovered, which done, Mr. Travers's measurements 

 would perhaps have been discarded as quite untenable. Some as 

 strange or even stranger mistake perplexes us a little further on, 

 where we are told that the external columns are three feet in dia- 

 meter (or only half what they are usually stated, viz., six feet and a 

 fraction), yet thirty-four feet four inches high, which would make their 

 height between eleven and twelve diameters ! and how sucli ex- 

 traordinary proportions could have escaped notice when the proof 

 was read over is incomprehensible. Neither does error terminate 

 there, since, besides the palpable contradiction in regard to the 

 diameter and height assigned to the columns, the latter measure- 

 ment and that of the entablature (10-10') renders the entire height 

 of the order 45 feet ; which, though in itself it may be correct, is 

 altogether irreconcileable with the width of the front being only 

 51 feet, or little more than a square in height, — the proportions 

 not of an octastyle but a tetrastyle, and such as it is impossible to 

 give to the former. Here, then, we ha\e a pretty complication of 

 blunders, and those of the most serious kind, in a publication 

 which ought to be scrupulously accurate in regard to the measure- 

 No. 12G— Vol. XL— Mauch, 1S4S. 



ments which it gives of buildings. Tliere is what looks like suf- 

 ficient pledge for editorial responsibility and carefulness, the title- 

 page assuring us that "the translations are re\ised by F. 

 Arundale and T. L. Donaldson, Prof. Arch., Univ. Coll., London;" 

 therefore, to those gentlemen may be left the task of accounting 

 for or explaining away the egregious mistakes here pointed out, and 

 which comprtmiise the credit and character of the work to such 

 degree as to demand correction— if in no other way, by cancelling 

 the pages where they occur. Not the least awkvvard'part of the 

 matter is, a detection of the kind naturally excites mistrust as to 

 other articles, where mistakes either of a similar or different kind 

 may have escaped the English revisors. In that very article on the 

 Parthenon, one paragraph that ouglit to have been omitted, was 

 unluckily sufi^ered to remain — namely, that which says : " We 

 give with this notice a splendid specimen of polychromatic archi- 

 tecture of tlie Parthenon, being a perspective view of the entabla- 

 ture and capitals, restored with the utmost care by Mr. Travers 

 from traces which he discovered in the monument itself." There 

 is, however, no such plate in the work — at least, not in theEnglish 

 edition, although it would have been particularly acceptable, and 

 far more valuable than all those of such unarchitectural subjects 

 as Cromlechs and Celtic monuments, ])ut togetlier. Of thetn^ two or 

 three specimens at the utmost would have sufficed : still better 

 would it have been had they been excluded altogether fi'om a work 

 which, were it to be extended to a hundred volumes, could not pos- 

 sibly illustrate all that is worthy of notice in " Ancient and 

 Modern Architecture." 



III. It is not only with regard to the notion of Blore's facade to 

 the Palace being a copy of that of Caserta, that Mr. Sliarp and 

 myself differ materially, my opinion of Elmes's " History of Archi- 

 tecture in Great Britain" being so \-ery dissimilar from his, that I 

 think the Editor has very great reason to complain of such a care- 

 lessly-executed and inaccurate performance being passed-off upon 

 him under the res])onsibility of Mr. Elmes's name. While there is a 

 great deal of mere garrulous filling-up anecdote, quite out of place in 

 an historic outline, and out of all proportion to the brevity and 

 rapidity of the record itself, there are not a few omissions, and 

 some of them truly unaccountable ones. Both Kent and his 

 patron, the Earl of Burlington, may be said to be passed over in 

 silence, since they obtain no further notice than the complimentary 

 mention of their names as " two accomplished architects of the 

 Anglo-Palladian school," without a syllable about any of their 

 works — eitlier the " Holkham" of the one, or the " Chiswick" of 

 the other. The name of '' Holkham," indeed — and it is the name 

 only— occurs elsewhere, but wrongly, for the credit of that palatial 

 mansion is taken from Kent, and assigned to Brettingham, who 

 merely published the designs of it, with his own name on the title- 

 page. It would seem, then, that " accomplished" architects as 

 they were, Kent and Burlington are not entitled to figure at all 

 in a history which brings forward such a mere nobody as John 

 Yenn. Neither is any mention made of Carr, of York, although 

 he was of considerable repute in his day, and erected many im- 

 portant mansions and other structures in the northern counties. 

 Harrison, of Chester, too, is similarly passed over without being 

 so much as named ; and to him may, among others, be added 

 Porden. Besides omissions of tliat kind, there is, with just here 

 and there an exception, the general and pervading omission of all 

 attempt at satisfactory critical estimate of the arcliitects and 

 buildings that are recorded. So little real substance is there in it, 

 that Mr. Elmes's " History" amounts to very little more than a 

 dry catalogue of names. What is worse, it is not trust-worthy ; 

 on the contrary, is so full of obvious mistakes as to excite general 

 mistrust, for notliing is to be depended upon it which the reader 

 cannot verify for himself. The Royal Exchange at Dublin, which 

 "everybody" knows to be by Cooley, whose talent and taste are very 

 happily displayed in it, is erroneously attributed to Cliambers. 

 Gandon is misnamed, for he is called William instead of James, — 

 a mistake, perhaps, of no very great moment, but which, coming 

 along with so many others, evinces the writer's habitual careless- 

 ness. It would, too, have been as well to have stated, that a 

 " Life" of Gandon — such as it is, was published about a twelvemonth 

 ago. Connected with Gandon, there is another mistake, for 

 after he had been spoken of as having edited the two last volumes 

 of the " Vitruvius Britannicus" (viz., the 4th and Sth), we are told 

 that " Colin Campbell published his useful work, the ' Vitruvius 

 Britannicus,' in four consecutive volumes, between the years 1715 

 and 1771" — therefore, the last of them about forty years after his 

 death — " to which, Woolf and Gandon respectively added supple- 

 mentary volumes of equal skill and correctness." This is so 

 ambiguously worded, that it seems to say, each of the two latter 

 editors separately added more than a volume to the original work, 



10 



