1848. 1 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



73 



undertaken for a purpose of practical utility, and when it can be 

 conveniently performed. 



As landowners and occupiers can now refer to the plans without 

 having the line staked out, and as engineers can check the levels 

 of ri\al lines from those plans, going over the ground with the 

 plans in their hands, it does seem very hard upon the companies 

 tliat they should incur such ex])ense for the officers of Royal 

 Engineers, who are to be employed to inspect the line. In fact, if 

 such parties cannot go over the ground without having the line 

 staked out, they must be utterly incompetent for the discharge of 

 tlie duties properly belonging to their own profession, and to the 

 performance of which it is desirable they should be restricted. It 

 will be open to a factious opposition to cavil about every one of the 

 posts ; and the military engineers and the whole party may be em- 

 l>loyed in ascertaining that the post is wrong by two inches above 

 or below the line. 



Clause 21 provides that the plans are to be deposited and in- 

 spected. The inspector, who knows as much aboiit civil affairs as 

 he does about civil engineering, is to hold courts along the line of 

 the proposed railway " for the purpose of receiving information or 

 suggestions from any persons interested in such proposed railway, 

 either as the promoters thereof, or as the owners and occupiers of 

 lands on or near to such line or otherwise," A very chea]) way of 

 mmoying the companies and putting them to expense, will be by 

 tlie landowners and farmers attending the inspector's court, and 

 occupying the time of the staff by raising all kinds of objections. 



The twenty-fourth clause is an ambiguous one, giving the com- 

 missioners power to allow the promoters to amend their plans after 

 inspection. 



Clause 25 provides that a second deposit is to be made ; and this 

 is followed by another ambiguous and inconsistent clause. 



Mr. DouU thinks that Clause 32 contemplates a second inspec- 

 tion of the line of railway. 



It behoves engineers to be on their guard against this most 

 tyrannical, mischievous, and vexatious measure, which will place 

 them under the inspection of their inferiors, the military engineers, 

 in every operation of a survey ; and they are to be subjected to the 

 judgment of these latter, whether a level be rightly taken or a 

 curve properly laid out. 



It will be seen that this bill subjects railway projectors to the 

 following new extent of unprofitable expenditure : — 



The depositing of £200 per mile with the Railway Commission- 

 ers. 



The advertising of the intention to survey. 



The preparing a reference book for the survey, and the serving 

 of the notices on the occu])iers. 



Staking out the line, marking the levels in feet and " inches," 

 and setting out the curves 



Making two deposits of the plans. 



Preparing amended plans. 



Attending the inspector in his inspection of the line as staked 

 out ; and fighting for the accuracy of the line, and against the 

 objections of the local parties. 



After all this has been done, the old preparations for encounter- 

 ing the ordeal of standing orders have to be made ; for the new 

 regulation of the Commons, providing for notices being sent 

 through the post is quite inoperative, as service has to be proved, 

 and the Lords require the old mode of service. 



Our readers will agree that any system of legislation more dis- 

 graceful to a country than that by which railway companies are 

 harassed, was never attempted or perpetrated. 



Ancient and Modem Art, Historical and Critical. By George 

 Cleghorn, Esq. Second Edition. Blackwood, Edinburgh and 

 Ltmdon, 1848. 



It is stated that the object of this work is to present, in a popu- 

 lar form, a brief sketch of ancient and modern art ; and to avoid 

 the faults of other publications, which are of no use to the ordi- 

 nary reader. By way of carrying out this pledge, the two volumes 

 are filled with long passages from the French and Italian, and 

 snatches of Greek and Latin, which are not likely to be very well 

 understood by the public, which are not needful in themselves, 

 and which do not even prove the learning of the author. As to 

 the execution of the work, without being original, it is loose 

 and unsatisfactory ; there is a hash of the opinions of foreign 

 writers on art, and the only novelty is the criticism of the author 

 om English writers and reviewers. It especially fails in giving a 

 clear idea of any one work, school, or style, and a reader taken 

 from the public would acquire the smallest amount of definite in- 

 formation from its pages. It is a very difficult task to give an 



abridged view of an extensive subject, so as to communicate 

 exact ideas ; indeed, an abridgement requires as high a degree of 

 ability as an extensive work. It is not surprising, therefore^ if Mr. 

 Cleghorn should utterly fail in this attempt. As from some petty 

 provincial feeling, there is more space devoted to tlie buildings, 

 sculpture, painting, and painters of Edinburgh than of any otlier 

 place — indeed, a large part of the two volumes — the public who 

 buy this book on its title, will have no more reason to be satisfied 

 with the quantity tlian with the quality. The work has such 

 small merits, that we should not feel called upon to notice it, if it 

 were not that it is likely to be taken for a popular %vork, as being 

 a second edition emanating from publishers of reputation. 



A popular manual of art has yet to be written and is much 

 wanted ; but it must convey definite information and descriptions 

 suited to practical men, and less general criticism of aitists and 

 works unknown to the public and not jiarticula^ised. Mr. Cleg- 

 horn's account of the Munich school is the best that he has given 

 us, but it is (|uite inadequate ; while a proper account of what has 

 been done and is doing there is one of the best incentives to tlie 

 encouragement of art here. 



We must do Mr. Cleghorn the justice to say, that so far as his 

 abilities go, he is sincerely desirous of promoting the interests of 

 art. It may be some excuse for his defects that the present work 

 is the offshoot of a pamphlet in favour of the imitation of the 

 Parthenon on the Calton Hill at Edinburgh, under the name of a 

 National Monument for Scotland. He is, therefore, a partisan of 

 pure Greek and what he calls idealism ; he allows of Gothic ; but 

 seems to hanker most after Italian. If it were not for the meta- 

 physical bent which effects all who are born north of the Tweed, 

 and leads liim into the discussions about idealism, he would be 

 catholic in his artistic predilections. His idealism is, however, 

 more confused than that of any German, because he is attached to 

 the study of nature ; and while holding up the imitation of nature 

 as the great end of art, he cannot make out how to reconcile it 

 with idealism. He has been born in the faith of idealism, — and 

 though his convictions are starting arguments constantly against 

 his faith, and though his practice is opposed to it, yet idealism he 

 persists in maintaining. What it is he has not been successful in 

 describing ; in one place it seems to be the genius and imagination 

 of the artist which constitute idealism : but this again does not 

 agree with statements elsewhere. The late Haydon, although 

 he talked very much about it, could never make himself understood. 

 The upshot always was " Nature and the Elgin marbles." Mr. 

 Cleghorn is strenuous in his abuse of what he calls the sect of na- 

 turalists, but without producing any arguments except in their 

 favour. 



He seems to be much more successful in reproducing M. Quatre- 

 mere de Quincy's definition of imitation. This is a fitting intro- 

 duction to a treatise on artistic criticism. Imitation in the fine 

 arts, says M. de Quincy, is the production of the likeness of a 

 thing, but in another thing which becomes its image. It is not a 

 reproduction of the thing, it is not its exact likeness, which can 

 only be the result of a reproduction ; but it is ths image of a like- 

 ness, to be animated by the mind of the observer. Hence, an at- 

 tempt at illusion fails because the artist takes on himself to per- 

 form the functions of the spectator, and leaves the latter little or 

 nothing to do. The originals of most of the figures of Raffaelle, 

 Rubens, or Murillo would produce much less interest than the 

 paintings : they would often excite the reproach of being ugly or 

 clumsy women. The best illustration of this fundamental princi- 

 ple of the fine arts, but one which Mr. Cleghorn has not adduced, 

 is that derived from the drama. On a small stage, and in a short 

 time, we are made to see the greatest men of antiquity, the revolu- 

 tions of years, and the consummation of the most important events 

 — the actors being men familiar to us even through the disguise of 

 costume. The mind, however, takes its part with the actor, and 

 shares in the realization. We do not want 



•* A klDgdom for a stape, princes to act, 

 And moiiarchs to behold the swelling scene." 



These accessaries are useless when the audience can supply their 

 absence. The great dramatic poet explains the theory of imita- 

 tion well, when he says to his audience : 



«' 'Tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings. 



Carry them here and there ; jumping o'er times; 

 Turning the accomplishment of u-.any years 

 Into an hour glass.'* 



As a perfect illusion is not necessary, but hurtful, so there are 

 bounds placed to limit the extent of art, and to limit the extent of 

 each department of art, — bounds best observed in the greatest 

 height of art, and soonest overstepped in its decadence. 



On the legitimate application of imitation all the fine arts de- 

 pend, ai»dthis is their bond of union; it is only in the vehicle 



11 



