1840.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



91 



ing every pai-t, a kindred feeling dift'using itself throughout. Omng to an 

 unfortunate Uttleness and feebleness of manner, buildings large in themselves 

 do not make an impression at all proportionate to their size, but are reduced 

 to the minimum of elfect. For grandeur and majesty of aspect Buckingham 

 Palace will hardly bear comparison with that lately erected at Brunswick ; 

 and which though by no means unexceptionable, proves Ottmer to be as 

 superior to Nash, as Brunswick is inferior to Great Britain. What the former 

 looks like, or rather does not look like, we all know too well ; but the other 

 has a princely au' that bespeaks the residence of a sovereign. 



Contrasts of this kind are Ukely to pass for invidious, more es{)ecially when 

 they happen to be unfavourable to ourselves ; yet the best way of preventing 

 such is by taking a salutary lesson from them for the futiu'C, and endeavour- 

 ing to be first where we now stand almost last. If, however, only to show 

 that we wish to be impartial, and do not blindly defer to the authority of 

 names and reputations, we shall here bestow some notice on the Konigsban, 

 or new palace at Jlunidi, numerous plans and other engravings of which may 

 be seen in the Bauzeitung for 1837. We need scarcely disavow any prejudice 

 agaiiKt Klenze, for we have been charged with being much too favourably 

 disposed towards hira our comments, therefore stand a chance of being re- 

 ceived as free from bias either way. 



The principal, or indeed, only facade, namely, that forming the north side 

 of the Max-Josephs-Platz, extends in a perfectly unbroken line for the length 

 of 406 feet (English). It is G5 feet high, except in the centre, where the 

 height is increased to 95 by the addition of another order, for the extent of 

 eleven windows, or somewhat more than half the length of the front : there 

 being twenty-one windows or apertures in each of the other stories. So far 

 there are the elements of grandeur — length, continuity, loftiness ; and when 

 we add to these, massiveness, both with regard to the relative proportion of 

 solid and void, and that arising from the character of the style employedi 

 namely, the older Florentine, it wiU be taken for granted that it is not at all 

 deficient in greatness of character and the qualities allied to it. Nevertheless 

 we are dissatislied, less for what it is than for what it is not. Scarcely any 

 pretension whatever is made to originality ; the whole is too dii'ect and close 

 an imitation of the Palazzo Pitti; the character also is palpably borrowed and 

 assumed, with this additional drawback of being altogether exotic, and not 

 at all in unison with any tiling else. As a monument, the oiiginal is a highly 

 interesting and impressive work of architecture ; as a study, most valuable ; 

 as a model, most unfit, — that is, for a palace in the nineteenth century. Re- 

 com-se might have been had to the same style, but it ought we conceive, to 

 have been differently treated, — in many respects considerably modified ; and 

 required a livelier and more captivating expression imparted to it. Instead 

 of this, the physiognomy given to the edifice is by far too repulsive and stern: 

 simplicity has been carried to severity, uniformity pushed to monotony, and 

 to the exchision of play or contrast of any kind. Moreover, its close general 

 resemblance to the Palazzo Pitti is apt to provoke a disadvantageous com- 

 parison, because after all it falls considerably short of that edifice in its mass ; 

 at the same time that it is deficient in the powerfid contrast produced in the 

 other by the greater solidity there of the lower pait. We do not approve of 

 architectural duplicates, more especially wlien an opportunity offers for a 

 masterly and original production. Such opportunities are far too precious to 

 be neghgently thrown away, and ought to be turned to account by creating 

 somctliiDg that shall carry art onward, and, if possible, give it a new and 

 invigorating impulse. 



These objections are no way diminished when we discover that instead of 

 the facade preparing us for the interior, it is quite in opposition to it ; the 

 decorations tliroughout the latter, both architectural and pictorial, being 

 scrupulously, not to say affectedly, Grecian, both in style and character. By 

 Wiegmann, Klenze has been reproached with inconsistency for having in the 

 Glyptotheca employed vaulted ceiUngs and other forms of Roman architectiu-e 

 witliin a building externally professing to be piu-ely Grecian : — this, we must 

 say, savoiurs rather of hypercriticism. But in the case before us there is a 

 positive clashing of opposites, because though the apartments are in every 

 other respect perfectly Greek in style and taste, their circidar-headed windows 

 contradict it, and disagreeably remind the spectator of the still more decided 

 difference between the taste of the exterior and that of the interior. Tliis, 

 however, is a trivial blemish compared with one vei-y serious and pervading 

 efect ; namely, that of the plan altogether, which so far from presenting any 

 kind of beauty, any originality, contrivance, variety, contrast, or play, is ex- 



ceedingly commonplace and monotonous, and is inconvenient withal as can 

 well be imagined. It is divided on each floor into two enfilades of rooms, ail 

 rectangidar, either square or oblong, without any intermediate communication, 

 except one part where there is a narrow passage for domestics. As far as 

 arrangement goes, not the shghtest attempt has been made at effect. Not 

 only are the principal rooms nearly of the same form, but nearly all of the 

 same size, and so cUsposed as to occasion inconvenience, and exclude effect 

 also. This will hardly be disputed when we say that the centre of the enfi- 

 lade in the front of the building divides into a series of small rooms, having 

 only a single window each ; and being appropriated as the king's and queen's 

 bed-rooms, dressing-rooms, &c., entirely cut off all communication between 

 those on either side of them. Thus, so far from any climax being produced, 

 all sort of focus and centralization is destroyed, and the parts are disunited 

 and scattered. In fact the whole of this floor can be considered as consisting 

 only of private apartments, notwithstanding that both on the king's and 

 queen's side there is a throne-room preceded by two or three ante-chambers. 

 With the exception of the rooms at either extremity of the front, all the 

 others must be inaccessible to those whose immediate personal attendance on 

 then- majesties does not give thera the privilege of passing and repassing as 

 there may be occasion of doing. 



We will not be quite sure that fresco-painting, when employed to the ex- 

 tent which it is throughout Munich palace, is altogether the very best mode 

 of decoration, or calculated to give the greatest importance to the architec- 

 ture. For particular rooms and in certain situations, it may be suitable 

 enough ; but it is hardly so for sitting rooms, where paintings upon such a 

 scale are apt to become too obstrusive, and by their subjects forming too 

 harsh a contrast — sometimes perhaps almost a ludicrous antithesis — to the 

 famiUar details of social life : the opposition becomes that of poetry to prose. 

 A mere picture does not force itself so conspicuously upon the attention ; it 

 may be gazed at or not, studied or overlooked ; but paintings which consti- 

 tute, so to say, the local scenery of the whole space, put forth a too du-ect 

 claim to notice ; and though they may be interesting to the casual visitor, 

 cease to make so much impression after constant famiharity. A great deal 

 may certainly be said on both sides ; we shall therefore only observe that as 

 decorations for the walls of sitting rooms, sulijects in fresco ought, w'e con- 

 ceive, to be employed with some reserve, and not suffered to occupy too great 

 a space of surface. In tliis opinion we are borue out by one who must be 

 admitted a competent authority on the subject, and who has not scrupled to 

 question the propriety of some of the most noted works of the kind. " The 

 fai--famed Loggie of the Vatican," says Hessemer, " which ever since they 

 first existed, have been extolled as the greatest models of decoration, are in 

 fact not decoration at all, but a series of paintings covering the surface of 

 both walls and ceihngs. As a whole they possess no architectural character ; 

 and if the separate pictures, allegories, &c., have very little intimate connec- 

 tion with each other, they have, as such, still less with their situation and 

 with the building itself. As ottering an instance of the greatest contradiction 

 between locality and decoration, may be mentioned the works of Giulio Ro- 

 mano in the Palazzo del TV at Mantua, with regard to the pictorial but non- 

 decorative merits of which I forbear to make any fm-ther comments." 



After our animadversions upon the Konigsbau we can hardly be charged 

 with being indiscriminate partisans of the " Bavarian Ictinus ;" nor is it with- 

 out concern we are compelled to admit that the talents of Klenze have not 

 always been in proportion to the opportunity aii'orded, or in correspondence 

 with the generous ardour of his royal patron. For the faults we have pointed 

 out we are not indebted to his opponent Wiegmann : since he bestows no 

 notice on any of Klenze's buildings, except merely en jjassanf, with brief and 

 general censure, and without entering at all into particular criticism. So far 

 his pamphlet has disappointed us, for though the title makes no specific pro- 

 mise, we did expect that, whether for eulogy or the reverse it w'oidd fm'uish 

 — if not a biography, yet something hke an account of the architect's profes- 

 sional career. Instead of this, the writer confines himself almost entirely to 

 the consideration of Klenze's principles and theory, as illustrated in his col- 

 lection of designs for chmclies, entitled " Christiche Bauart." Of that pro- 

 duction we cannot trust ourselves to speak, not having the volume by us to 

 refer to, nor now recollecting more of it — after a single inspection — than that 

 we considered the designs of rather mediocre quahty, and betraying a want 

 of study. The specimens there given of Greek architecture as applied to that 

 class of buildings appeared to us by no means happy models, nor calculated 



N 2 



