93 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCIlITECrs JOURNAL. 



[Aphii,, 



nlile list of isms, — the most fatal one of all amonp; wliicli i;5 

 CoPYisM.— Assuming tlie Doric to be the offspring of the Egyptian 

 stvle, tlie differences between it and its parent are far more obvi- 

 ous tlian are tlie resenibhinces, wliich extend to very little more 

 than the general system of construction with massive architraves 

 lesting upon round columns, closely spaced, and of few diameters 

 in height. Yet, without ])ioceeding further, we find here at once 

 a marked dissimilarity both as to form and taste; because, although 

 in each style the C(dumns are round, in tlie Egyptian tlieir shafts 

 are almost invariably cylindrical, vvliile in the Greek-Doric they 

 taper very visibly, — more es])ecially in the earlier examples, which, 

 if the derivation of the latter style from the otliei be not a mistake, 

 would, it may be sup]iosed, have retained what is so strong a charac- 

 teristic of their prototyjie. M'itli respect to general proi)ortions, 

 indeed, and to qxaiitity independent of form, a decided analogy exhi- 

 bits itself; but no more than that. The comparison of the two styles 

 might be pursued, and they might be confronted with each other in 

 all their several points of resemblance and disparity; but to do so 

 would require many pages, whereas the object of the present note 

 is chiefly to remark that pursuing a course very different from the 

 practice of tlie present day, the Greeks made what they borrowed, 

 or borrowed the hint of, altogetlier their own by infusing into it, 

 upon artistic principles, a new and quickening spirit. 



IV. We, on the contrary, have made of Grecian architecture 

 nothing better than a sort of motley manufacture, compounded of 

 Greek columns and entablatures literally transcribed from one or 

 two hackneyed exam|des, and stuck upon buildings which have 

 nothing whatever in common with those from which such examples 

 are derived: so far from it that they are altogether at variance 

 with Greek physiognomy and Greek taste. People seem to judge 

 of ardiitecture by their eai's rather than their eyes, columns 

 "after the Parthenon" — or whatever else it may be — having ere now 

 ensured admiration for some of the most tasteless architectural 

 Ijotchings that can well be conceived. As one instance, thougli 

 not the worst, of the preposterous mania for soi-disant Gi'eek 

 porticoes, the front of Bethlehem Hospital may be referred 

 to. As to inaiiHi itself, it is tliere-^no doubt in a very proper 

 place for it, and it shows itself very strongly; au reste, it was the 

 height of preposterousness to think of "a noble portico," and at- 

 tempt thereby to give a sort of palatial air to an hospital of that 

 description, or indeed to any hospital at all. That absurdity, bow- 

 ever, gross as it is, is not the only one, absurdity being heaped 

 upon absurdity even to ridiculousness. To drag it in for the 

 nonce, in defiance of pro]iriety, of character, and of decent con- 

 gruitv of design (what nothing short of extreme necessity could 

 liave excused in the particular case), was absurd in the extreme. 

 While classical taste was meant to be displayed, the very reverse of 

 it is betrayed; for in proportion as any one has intelligence of and 

 relish for Greek architecture, must be feel it to be degraded and 

 disgraced liy such application of it. Even taken by itself, without 

 reference to the rest of the structure, the portico is but a very 

 humdrum thing of the kind, whose bigness stands in lieu of artis- 

 tic gi'eatness and gusto. The most that can be urged in favour of 

 it is, that although it added to the expense of the building, it was 

 a very great saving in another respect — inasmuch as it saved the 

 architect, good easy man, all study, the portico being the alpha 

 and omega of his automaton design. 



V. 1 do not, I find, stand quite alone, for there are some who 

 begin to be pretty much of tlie same opinions as myself, and to 

 give utterance to them rather freely. One reviewer has lately 

 spoken of "heavy pedantry, verbal prosing, and hectoring dog- 

 matism," as constituting "the literary etiquette of nearly all archi- 

 tectural writing." \\'henever they take up the pen, even architects 

 themselves let it be seen that they have just as confined and con- 

 fused notions of their art as the rest of the world. Rarely do they 

 show themselves to be eitlier artists, or competent critics of art : 

 in fact, they eschew criticism — critical comment and explanation — 

 nearly altogether ; contenting themselves with merely asserting 

 what has been before asserted over and over again. Never do they 

 attempt to set received oijinions in a fresh light, in order to see 

 how they will bear examination when so viewed. On the contrary, 

 they touch them so tenderly, not to say superficially, that they a])- 

 pear to consider them of a very cobvvebby nature. They do 

 scarcely anything to recommend and facilitate the study of archi- 

 tecture, by endeavouring to render it more generally attractive 

 and interesting; and yet they are apt to comiilain that the public 

 do not sufficiently appreciate and sympathise with their art. 



\T. By way of setting one matter in a new light, myself, I will 

 remark that extravagantly as tlie Greeks have been extolled for 

 their skilful combination of sculpture with architectuie, it is in 

 some respects open to olijectiun. It has been said of the Parthe- 



non, that the structure itself seems to have been treated as se- 

 condary to the sculpture, and made the frame-wmk for the latter. 

 Certain, however, it is that the sculpture was made to adapt itself 

 to the architectural forms, and forced into sclicmes of composition 

 too cramping and confined to be particularly favourable to it. If 

 we put prejudice, authority, and association aside, it must, I think, 

 be admitted that the triangle or pediment is of all shapes the one 

 least suited for framing in a composition consisting entirely of 

 figures. Considered with regard to situation, and as far as general 

 effect is concerned, a pediment no doubt affords a surface that very 

 properly admits of sculptural decoration, because as decoration it 

 there displays itself very conspicuously and effectively; but the 

 subject considered as a composition of figures, suffers more or 

 less, if only because the same general arrangement must in every 

 case be adojited alike, and must comply with the general form pro- 

 scribed by the outline of the end of the roof. A gable, especially 

 a semiciicular one (answering in its shape to a lunette), would be 

 a much better field for sculpture than the low Greek, or compara- 

 tively low Roman, pediment. This is of course very heretical, 

 and will perhaps be set down by some as calling in question, with 

 cijual ignorance and impudence, the acknowledged supremacy of 

 Greek sculpture. Do I forget the Parthenon? (I have heard its 

 name till I sicken at it) — oi have 1 never seen the Elgin niiirbles.'' 

 Yet, so far from depreciating sculpture, my remarks rather go to 

 vindicate it, and to claim for it as sculpture some more honourable 

 post than that of mere architectural embellishment and fiUing-uj); 

 which might be su|iplied equally well and far less expensively than 

 by ambitious figure compositions. Such apidication of sculpture 

 externally is at all events not suitable for our climate, because our 

 climate is so unfavourable, that he its merit what it may as a dis- 

 tinct work of art, a fyure composition, very soon becomes more or 

 less defaced, if not effaced, so that it is only with some pains that 

 the subject can be made out,— which is, however, perhaps in most 

 cases an advantage, because the more indistinguishable it is, the 

 better; and the best that can be said is, that an expression of 

 richness is given to the architecture — as might be done equally 

 effectively at infinitely less cost, because in many instances a few 

 random scratches of the chisel would show just as well as positive 

 design. I have touched upon this matter just before in paragraph 

 IX. of my last Fasciculus; still, the present remarks are not 

 therefore quite superfluous, the matter itself not having been, as 

 far as I am aware, touched u))on by any one else. As to statues 

 introduced in external situations as adjuncts to architecture, they 

 are now seldom applied by us at all, and seldomer with anything 

 like the effect they might be, they being put where they do not 

 tell only as pinnacles. The usual secundum urtem practice — for I 

 cannot call it principle — is to hoist up statues as far above the eye 

 and as much out of sight as possible, so that they must be looked 

 out for before they can be loooked at; w hereas, placed in the lower 

 part of a building, statues would become important objects, and 

 lead to effects in architectural composition that are now never 

 aimed at or even thought of. Either single statues or groups placed 

 on the pedestals enclosing the steps of such porticoes as those of 

 St. George's, Bloomsbury, the London Universitj', and the Royal 

 Exchange, would show as admirably as they would distinctly. 

 Were 1 ashamed of anything, I might be ashamed of quoting sucli 

 authority as the Colosseum in tlie Regent's Park, for placing 

 statues with equal propriety and effect. Though merely cheap 

 ornamental figures or casts, those which are there placed on each 

 side of the building so as to extend the ground-line of the gener; 1 

 composition, serve as valuable artistically put-in accessories. Still 

 those who bother both themselves and other people about the 

 imaginary curved lines of the Parthenon, are by far too dignified 

 to take a hint from such example. 



THE ARCHITECTURAL EXHIBITION. 



Again and again have we urged the policy of establishing a se- 

 parate annual exhibition of architectural designs, drawings, and 

 models, so that such subjects might have fair play, and fair chance 

 for attention, which they certainly have not at the Royal Academj', 

 where they form the fag-end of an over-crowded exhibition of 

 pictures; and where space is so limited that not above a third of 

 what architectural productions are received and hung up, can be 

 at all properly seen. At length, our wish is partly fulfilled: a 

 beginning has been made — but it is not, we very much fear, an 

 auspicious one. It is rather to be apprehended that auspices are 

 entirely against it. t)riginating as it does with a junior body of 

 the profession (the Architectural Association), totally unaided by 

 the slighteat show of pati-onage from any quarter, the scheme is 



