M 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND AUCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



[ M^VECU, 



instead of bringing; out conjointly two other volumes to accompany 

 tlie three that had been ]iiiblislie(l by Campbell. When he was 

 mentioning that collection of designs, Mr. Elmes might as well 

 have observed, that it is by no means so com)ilete as it ought to 

 have been; for wliile it is made to contain severalverydull andun- 

 interesting subjects, others are omitted whicli are either of con- 

 siderable celebrity or merit, — such as Lord Burlington's Casino, 

 at Chiswick (since altered bj' Wyatt), and St. George's, Blooms- 

 bury. 



IV. In speaking of ■^Vyatt's Pantheon — of which greatly, if not 

 extravagantly, admired structure, it is equally matter of surprise 

 and regret that no engravings were given, either in Gandon's last 

 volume of the "Vitruvius," or in the subsequent worl-c by llicliardson, 

 — IMr. Elmos sadly neglectsbis proper duty as an architectural his- 

 torian, to gossip very provokingly about Lunardi's balloon, instead of 

 entering into any description of tlie edifice itself, which he merely 

 calls a "fine work," with(nit particularizing any of its beauties 

 and merits. The onl)' [jart of it on which he makes any remarks, 

 is that which least of all required notice — namely, the front ; it 

 still remaining ])retty nearly what it was at first. He speaks, 

 however, of the portico as having been of the Ionic order ; and if 

 so. the Doric one, which existed before the building was converted 

 into a bazaar, cannot luive been that which Mr. Elmes alludes to, 

 altluiugh he does not say as much. In what is said of that front, 

 the term " wings" is not very correctly applied, the whole of it 

 forming only a single general mass, without such subdivision into 

 distinct collateral masses as properh' answer to the denomination 

 of " wings," which Mr. Elmes elsewhere applies equally vaguely, 

 as when noticing the " Trinity House," and the " Society of Arts" in 

 the Adelphi. Another instance of his indefiniteness in what 

 ought to be exjilicit technical phraseology, is his very untechnical 

 mode of describing a recessed portico or loggia, calling it some- 

 times an " in\erse" portico, sometimes a " retrocessed" one, or by 

 some other more fantastical than intelligible epithet. 



V. The admiration professed for what is Soane's liappiest piece of 

 composition has not extended itself beyond words. We may say 

 of it liiitdutur at alget^ since no one has testified his estimation of 

 it by borrowing an idea from it, notwithstanding that similar 

 striking effect and picturesque expression might be obtained 

 without falling into direct imitation. Nay, Mr. Elmes would 

 make out Soane himself to ha\e been there only an imitator, — at 

 least, to have " had in his mind the semicircular porticos of the 

 transepts of St. Paul's," as if, without them, the idea would not 

 have emanated, as no doubt it immediately did, from his 

 studies of the Temple at Tivoli, whose order — an equally beautiful 

 and peculiar example of the Corinthian, tliat had previously been 

 ignored by all modern architects and all the systematisers of 

 the Five Orders, — was adopted by him at the Bank as a decided 

 no\-elty, with unimpeachable classical authority for it. Still, 

 though he adopted it, even Soane himself does not appear to have 

 comprehended its diaracter, for it is only at that angle of the 

 Bank that he has exhibited it entire, having in the other parts of 

 the building employed the columns only, without the entablature 

 which belongs to them, not only in conformity with the original 

 example, but in conformity with the laws of aesthetic design. By 

 supi)ressing — as if such cliange was of no moment at all — the rich 

 embossed frieze, which is alisolutely necessary for keeping up 

 harmony and perfect agreement in the eiu-emhle of the order, he 

 converted the entablature altogether into one which contrasts 

 rather than at all agrees with the columns themselves. Their 

 fluted shafts become too rich, and their capitals look too heavy, 

 in comparison with the emasculated entablature. The energy of 

 expression, as well as the degree of decoration assumed for the 

 columns, stops short with them, instead of being carried on con- 

 sistently, and extended to the horizontal division of the order, 

 wliere, if anything, increase rather than diminution of decoration 

 is requisite, since otherwise, a most disagreeable falling-off takes 

 place: anijilwrd cwpit iiistitin, — ttrceus exit. If decoration is to be 

 moderated at all, it sliould at least be done consistently, and so as 

 not to tlirow one part out of keeping with another ; the doing 

 which — and it is by no means uncommon — betrays either down- 

 right ignorance, or wilful and most unpardonable disregard of both 

 precedent and principle. What is not least of all extraordinary 

 is, that those who are gifted withsuch \ery microscopic vision astobe 

 struck by the profile of a mere moulding in a cornice, or some 

 equally minute detail, take no notice of such wholesale omissions as 

 the suppression of sculi)ture on a frieze amounts to. In some por- 

 tions of the Bank the frieze is not, indeed, left entirely blank, it 

 being ornamented witli a Vitruvian fret ; which, however, has a 

 tame and insipid look in compariscin with the boldness of the 

 capitals. If deviation from the original there was to be at all, it 



would not have been amiss, perhaps, to increase the cornice, and 

 also give it stmiething of richness ; thereby i-endering the entabla- 

 ture ecpiivalent in force of expression to that of the ccdumns. 



VI. \^'ith regard to that particular feature in the architecture 

 of the Bank which has given rise to the jireceding remarks, it 

 has obtained more of professed admiration for its striking effect 

 than of inquiry into the cause of that effect. For such inquiry, 

 perha])s, there is no great need ; becaiise no one who has any eye 

 at all for the picturesque in architecture, can be at a loss to deter- 

 mine in what the peculiar piquancy of that composition consists. 

 Still, it is necessary that its merits, in that respect, should be dis- 

 tinctly pointed out, if only in order to force such earnest attention 

 to them as might lead to similar happy results in composition. 

 Precisely the same columns are used in other parts of the build- 

 ings, yet nowhere with anjthing at all approaching the same 

 effect ; and why ? because here the composition is such as to be 

 unusually productive of those " accidents" which gi\e life and 

 spirit to architecture — namely, \igorous cliiaro-sciiro, play of per- 

 spective, and richness of combination. There is not merely 

 light and shade in a greater than cudinary degree, but variety of 

 it — deepening shadows and brilliantly-touched lights when the sun 

 begins to strike upon that angle of the building. Of perspective ap- 

 pearance, also, there is great variety, owing to the apparent changes 

 of position between the external columns and the inner ones, and 

 also to the contrasted disposition of them, the former being upon a 

 curved line, the latter on a straight one. There is also another 

 point of contrast between them which is equally judicious and 

 happy, the outer columns being fluted and the others plain. This, 

 while it adds to the variety of the composition, prevents confusion ; 

 and such is the value of the two inner columns, that without 

 them the wln)le would be many degrees less admirable. They are, 

 besides, both nioti\'ed by and serve to warrant the mode in which 

 the attic is carried across the loggia in a straiglit line. The only 

 exceptionable thing is the door, or rather the appearance of door, 

 when there can be no entrance from without, and where therefore 

 a window or window-door — even had that also been only in ap- 

 pearance — would have been less of an impropriety. But a statue 

 of some sort, sufiiciently important in size, would not only have 

 been an interesting object of itself, but have done away with all 

 necessity for appearance of access into the loggia, since the latter 

 would in such case have had an ostensible purpose as a piece of 

 decoration. 



VII. We get architectural criticism — as far as we do get any of 

 it at all — merely by a mouthful of it at a time. A\'hat professes 

 to be such is sekbmi more than a single condensed opinion expressed 

 in the lump, wrapped up perhaps in a mass of cumbersome verbiage, 

 or else enunciated in a tone of oracular decisiveness, intended to 

 awe into silence and stifle inquiry and discussion. Even Horace 

 Walpole's critical verdicts, albeit they were sometimes turned 

 epigrammatically enough, were both flimsy and unjust, shallow and 

 superficial. Wliat he says of the campanile of St. George's, 

 Bloomsbury, amounts to a mere sneer, and convicts him withal 

 of being quite obtuse to picturesque effect in composition, and 

 other architectural merits. As to Gothic architecture, Horace 

 disqualified himself for setting up as a judge of that by his own 

 precious Strawberry HiU, which would liave absolutely horrified 

 him had he possessed the slightest feeling whatever for that style. 

 Yet, even \ile as it is, Strawberry Hill has been deliberately 

 praised by another discei-ning critic and writer on architecture, 

 who says that the connoisseur would there find "all that is fas- 

 cinating in the Gotliick style." All that is fascinating with a ven- 

 geance ! ^V'ere it possible to conceive that DaUaway was there 

 merely joking, we could account for such praise as being con- 

 demnatory irony ; liut he seems to have been quite serious, and 

 must accordingly have been exceedingly stui>id also. In what its 

 fascinations consist he does not say, althougli if any such merits 

 there were, it behoved a critic to point them out, and to do so in 

 such manner as so fix attention upon them. The comfort is, we 

 lose very little by Dallaway's confining himself to only very 

 hurried and superficial remarks on nu)dern English buildings and 

 architects, since what he does say, indicates but very mediocre 

 critical talent and taste. AVhat sort of an architectural critic 

 Allan Cunningham was, — how well qualified to undertake the 

 "Lives of British Architects,"^ — may be judged from the censure he 

 passes upon the large open arches and loggias above them in the 

 river fayade of Somerset Place, — the most striking features, or 

 rather the only Striking ones, in that composition. In a fit of 

 hypercriticism, Allan affects to be shocked at those very picturesque 

 parts of the structure, as being quite contrary to all architectural 

 principle and propriety, he asserting that the columns over the 

 void of the arch produce " an appearance of insecurity that is al- 



