92 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND AllCHlTECT'S JOURNAL. 



[March, 



to iiiilnicl, as they might liave done, hail the motives of each sulyect heen 

 cxjilaiiicii. As little are wc able to say whether the severity of Wiegmaun's 

 rcinarks, — his fastiiliousness aiul caiiliousiicss arc juslilieil by anything he 

 himself has done, or by greater snceess attending his own princiijlcs ; to con- 

 fess the truth, it is not very clear to us what the latter really are, or what at 

 times he means to say. AVe may however venture to assert that several of 

 his remarks come home to others besides Klenze, and who, equally bigottcd 

 in favour of Creek architecture, are still more cold and pedantic in their ap- 

 plication of it ; formal copyists, who do not even attempt more (hau a mere 

 rcilection of (he anti(pic, and that only in particular features; and while cer- 

 tain forms arc scrupulously imitated, fulcUty as to the genius and real spirit 

 of the style affected is usually lost, — perhaps held matter of no account. The 

 consequence is that the things so produccil arc more of less failures — neither 

 anticpie nor modern — not a skilful adaptation of both, but a harsh aiul dis- 

 agreeable conflict of ojjposing elements and contradictory ideas. Little does 

 it avail for an architect to eiLhibit the most perfect Grecian portico or colon- 

 nade, if lie at the same time lets us see that he has trusted to that alone ; — 

 that so far from being a necessary portion of his structiu-e, it is a mere ad- 

 junct which, (hough certainly not so intended, chiefly forces us to feel its 

 own vast superiority over all the rest ; and the ditiiculty, if not impossibility, 

 of making that which ought to be principle harmonize with, or even seem 

 worthy of, what is engrafted upon it. Almost invariably do architects forget 

 that by such adoptions they tacitly bind themselves to raise every other par* 

 in the same spirit, and to display such powers as shall excuse their ajipro- 

 priating the merit of others to themselves, by making it truly part and parcel 

 of their ow n work. 



Unless this last can be efl'ected with ability, the antique forms will seldom 

 be more than something hung aoout a modern building, — extraneous parts ; — 

 not a consistent dress in which the whole is attired, but mere trimmings and 

 appendages ; iutcnilcd to jiass for arehitectmal style, but oflcner making it 

 all the more manifest, bow deficient the building itself is in character, and 

 destitute of all that conduces to style. Nay, if, on the one hand, columns and 

 other Greek decorations display the great superiority uf classical taste, on the 

 other, they lose much of their original value and charm, by being associated 

 with what but ill accords with them. Many a modern soi-disaut Greek 

 building reminds us of Cicero's witty question to Lentulus : " Who has tied 

 you to that great sword ?" — for with us the question might frequently be : 

 MMio has tied that plain and insignificant building to that classical portico ? — 

 It also generally happens that such feature is itself impoverished, iu order 

 that the contrast betnesu it and the rest may not be too riiliciUously glar- 

 ing. 



Diainctrically opposed to KleiEC, who considers Grecian or Greco-Roman 

 architecture — for he docs not reject the Roman arch — to be the only style 

 .•ulaptcd for iniiNcrsal aiqilieatiou, AViegmanu contends that the ailhereuec, or 

 the altcmpt to adhere, to pure Greek forms iu our present and totally dif- 

 ferent system of construction, is no better than pedantic afl'ectation ; and 

 that they ought no longer to be retained by us as models. He further asserts 

 that there can be no such thing as a permanent and unchangeable style in 

 architecture, and that the endeavour to revive at the present day any by-gone 

 blyle whatever is an absurdity, aud very much like trying to force a stream 

 to flow back to its source. According to him, only that which is perfect 

 matter of indili'erence in itself, and has nothing to do with style, can be in- 

 discriminately adopted as suitable to all limes and all occasions. In this 

 there is a certain degree of truth, but somewhat of perverscness also ; for a 

 style based upon (ircek architecture must upon the whole be allow e<l to run 

 more in unison with modern taste generally, and prove more capable of ap- 

 plication to every diversity of purpose, than any other wc arc acquainted with. 

 At all events Wiegmann himself has not even attc nipled to point out how we 

 arc to extricate ourselves from the perplexities of his doctrine. He is not one 

 of those who would discard Grecian in order to make way for Gothic, because 

 lie rejects the (Uic just as much as the other. Neither do we exactly know- 

 how far he really objects to the Greek style, or under what linutalions he 

 cinisiders its adoiitioii allowable or even beneficial. That he admits the latter 

 to be possililc, is, however, apparent from the commendations he bestows 

 upon Sehinkel, observing : 



" He is an inspired venerator of Grecian art ; but instead of adhering to its 

 ''.xtcrnals alone,— to what was more or less conventional in it, and arose out 

 ^i the c.rcuwstances of the timss in which it noiuishcd— he has actually 



penetrated into its very sjiirit, and iu more than one of his works has shown 

 that the rationality and beauty arising out of construction, — which stamps 

 the works of the Greeks as superior to all others, may be made to ilisplay 

 themselves even at the present day ; and that notwithstanding the great dif- 

 ference between them aud the structures of antiquity in regard to many par- 

 ticulars of design, such works partake infinitely more of the same spirit than 

 do the ill understood and lifeless imitations of which Klenze has furnished us 

 so many," viz. in his Cbristbche liaukunst. 



How the above passage can be very well reconciled with the apparently 

 uiKpialified rejection of Greek architecture even as a type for us moderns, is a 

 point we must leave to Heir Wiegmann himself to explain. In admitting 

 that it is possible to catch the true spirit and genius of Grecian architecture, 

 and to infuse them into buildings adapted to widely different purposes from 

 those of antiquity, he admits that all we ourselves contend for; and in fact, 

 so far advocates the very coiu'se we ourselves wotdd uphold ; — since few can 

 be more strongly ojiposed than ourselves to that cold, fonnal, lifeless imita- 

 tion of Greek models, which amounts to nothing more than the most servile 

 and tasteless species of copying, — slavishly correct as to certain particulars, 

 but egregioiisly ineoirect — absolutely lieenlious, in all that regarils taste and 

 feeling. We ccrtauily should have been far better satisfied had Wiegniana 

 explained himself so fully as to remove all apparent contiailietions, and to 

 leave no room whatever for doubt ; still more, had he confined himself more 

 strictly to architecture, instead of entering into vague metaphysical inqmries 

 w ith regard to the nature and power of art generally, while he is so brief and 

 obscure in regard to many points connected with the former, and which it is 

 highly desirable that either he or some one else should render perfectly clear. 

 What he chiefly proves is, not that Grecian architecture is altogether inappli- 

 cable at the present day — such doctrine being wholly at variance with the 

 very high commendation bestowed upon Sehinkel for the happiness with 

 which he has in many instances made use of it ; — but that the designs in the 

 Christhehe Baukunst are nearly all more or less defective, notwithstanding 

 that they were put put forth as models for the instruction of others, nor was 

 their author at all fettered in his ideas by any of those circnmstanees which 

 generally interfere in the case of actual buildings. After all, therefore, the 

 more important question is left poised in equilibrium, as much being conceded 

 on one hand as is denied on the other. Very little notice, again, is bestowed 

 on the buildings actually erected by Klcnzc, notwithstanding that many of 

 them— not only the I'uiacotbeca and Neue Residenz, Init Prince MaximiUan's 

 i'alace, Kriegsmiuisteriimi, Post Office, &c., are almost enturely iu the Italiaa 

 and particularly iu the Florentine style ; yet whether the Munich arcliiteet's 

 practice is on that account to be considered much move sound than liis theory, 

 we are not ex|iUeitly told, but left to guess it as well as we can. Now this 

 inilistinctness and indecision are to us liighly chsagreeable ; If Wiegmann 

 thought he could even demolish Kleuze altogether and give the death-blow to 

 bis theory in recommendation of Greek architecture, he should have showa 

 himself more in earnest ; and instead of saying a ven* great deal that amounts 

 to nothing, should have stuck to the main point, and there battered away. 

 If he wishes to have it understood that Klenze is little better than a charlatan 

 iu art, he should have put — or tried to put the fact beyond doubt, — should 

 have left us no middle comse, but have cither compelled us to adopt, or called 

 upon us to refute his arguments. 



Wc are, indeed, favoured with opinions as to one or two of the structures 

 erected by Klenze at Munich ; yet mere opinions are very ihtfereut from aigu- 

 ment and criticism : they may be correct or erroneous, just or unjust, but, if 

 received at all, must betaken entirely upon trust, at least by those who have 

 either not the means, or else not the ability, judging for themselves. Thus, 

 Wiegmann dispatches the Kiinigsbau very summarily, caUing it a " verball- 

 hornten Pallast Pitti;" and again, condemns the Glyptotheca as an unhappy 

 combination of a pure Greek temple with a prison-like mass of building. If 

 it is the absence of windows that constitutes the prison-like character coiU/. 

 plained of, the same conqiarison may be extended not only to the temples, 

 but almost all the other public ecUliees of the ancients, that are remaining . 

 while if some other circumstance produces this eft'eet, it might not have been 

 amiss to explain it to us. Is Wiegmann of opinion that the wings of the 

 fai;adc are too low for the portico ? — that, instead of rising above the rest, 

 the portico would have appeared more of a piete with it, if merely stuck ou 

 to the building, and made to jut out fi'om it, the whole front being kept of 

 the same height throughout,^ U«' docs he think that some windows boll* 



