146 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECrS JOURNAL. 



LMav, 



merits by Sir Joshua, the name of that Sir John mipht still have 

 had attached to it the ridicule endeavoured to be affixed to it by 

 tlie puny wits of his day — or rather, by tlie p\iny witticisms wliich, 

 in their utter ignorance of art, they levelled against him; seeing, 

 as tliey did, no other quality in his buildings but that of heaviness. 

 That Vanbrugh was exceedingly careless and faulty in his details 

 — sometimes coarse even to slovenliness, is not to be denied; still, 

 he showed himself to be a master in j)icturesque composition, es- 

 pecially if compared in that respect with his contemporaries. To 

 unqualified praise he is assuredly not entitled, but assuredly also 

 it is not difficult to discriminate between his defects and his 

 merits, — not difficult to avoid the former, although not so easy, 

 perhaps, to rival the latter. 



ly. It would seem, however, that critical discrimination is not 

 at all the forle of either architectural students or their teachers. 

 It is not at all uncommon to find buildings that are exceedingly 

 unequal in point of design, good perhaps in some respects, yet 

 equally faulty in others, recommended- — at least, so it would seem 

 — as studies, without one syllable of caution as to their faults. 

 Of some of them, indeed, the faults are so striking tljat they 

 hardly need be pointed out; still there is danger in passing over 

 them. Hence much mischief is likely to ensue from such works as 

 Letarouilly's "Edifices de Rome Moderne," from which some are 

 now freely borrowing subjects, which they exhibit as if they were 

 most unquestionable models of design and good taste — nothing 

 being said to the contrary. For such purpose, one publication has 

 recently selected the facade of the Palazzo Costa, which, either in 

 ignorance or unwarrantable audacity, it asserts to be "charac- 

 terised by elegance, resulting from a study of proportion, fitness, 

 and requirements;" whereas, the fact is, it shows itself to be cha- 

 racterised by the reverse of elegance, and by what, as far as the 

 principal floor is concerned, may truly be called very dumpy pro- 

 portions, the windows there being considerably less than a double 

 s()uare in height, and not even twice as high as the pedestal or 

 dado beneath them; nor is that the only defect in the design. 

 Another subject selected by the same publication from Letarouilly, 

 is the elevation of a little palazzo, by Vignola, in the Piazza 

 Navona. Although A'ignola is a great name, the merit of that 

 design of his is exceedingly small; consequently it ought not to 

 be put forth as if it were such as to recommend itself to especial 

 notice at the present day. 



V. That all the views of tlie farade of the British Museum 

 which have hitherto appeared should confine themselves to the 

 central pile, and judiciously omit showing the wings, is so far from 

 being complimentary to Sir Robert Smirke, as to be equivalent to 

 a declaration that the latter do not at all belong to the other, and 

 that so far from contributing at all to form a grand extended com- 

 position, they are to be looked uptui as something altogether ex- 

 traneous, — in other words, will not bear looking upon as adjuncts 

 to the main pile. Pity, therefore, that those official residences 

 were not, as they easily might have been, put quite in the 

 background, and the sites now occupied by them left for the 

 erection of additional galleries, as will, no doubt, be required at 

 no very distant period. The tacit condemnation would be critical 

 damnation enough of the facade as a composition, even were it 

 not accompanied by a taciturnity on the part of criticism with 

 regard to the rest, which gives us plainly to understand that not 

 even a single syllable of |n-aise can be pjausibly uttered in favour 

 of it. Setting aside tlie columns themselves, which are no more 

 designed by Sir Robert than by the stonemasons who executed them 

 — there is nothing whatever that amounts to design properly so 

 called. Besides which, as here ajijilied, the number of columns is 

 made to produce far more of dull monotony than of richness and 

 scenic efiect; which, however, is not very surprising, since Smirke 

 and Effect are the very antipodes of each other. As I have more 

 than once before, 1 believe, expressed my opinion of the Wusenin, 

 many— that is, what readers 1 have, will probably think I entertain 

 downright spite against it. Well, I confess to the impeachment; 

 for I do hold the building to be a miserable abortion in ])oint of 

 design, considering tlie jiurpose of the building, and the ojiportu- 

 nity which it afforded. At any rate, if the public can be satisfied 

 with the Museum, they have very little right to find fault w ith the 

 National Gallery as they do. The latter, however, is made the 

 scapegoat of our architectural sinnings, or the conductor to carry 

 off the lightning of our criticism from many things that are infi- 

 nitely worse, it may be freely admitted that the (iallery is neither 

 what it ought to have been, nor so good as it is still capable of being 

 made, both in its interior and exterior, by some partial alterations; 

 yet, as regards the interior, no alterations can be planned for it jiro- 

 periy until it be finally determined whether the Academy are to 

 retain the portion now occupied by them, or the whole be appro- 



priated to the national collection of pictures. At all events, it 

 cannot be said even now that Wilkins's structure disgraces Trafal- 

 gar Square, the latter and the buildings on its other sides being 

 quite graceless in themselves. Those, too, who can shut their eves 

 to the uncouth taste and vile deformities of St. Martin's Church, 

 and open them only to admire the portico, or rather the columns, 

 might surely do the same with regard to the Gallery. Still it is 

 not very difficult to guess why they do not do so, the true reason 

 being simply this: the one has been greatly cried-up, and the other 

 cried-down. 



VI. St. Stephen's, Walbrook, is another greatly cried-up affair; 

 and as in matters of architectural taste former judgments are 

 never revised, but seem to be regarded as irrevocable verdicts, — it 

 continues to be still spoken of as a masterpiece — that is, when- 

 ever it is now spoken of at all. In my opinion, the defects in its 

 design so greatly exceed its beauties as completely to neutralise 

 them. There is much in the interior that is positively mean and 

 ordinary; and with more than light enough, there is no efl^ect of 

 light, — on the contrary, a most disagreeable kind of spottiness in 

 that res])ect is occasioned by the ugly little oval holes in the walls 

 for windows; whereas, had the whole been lighted lii/piethral/y 

 through the dome, — with perhaps one or two smaller secondary 

 openings for light in other parts of the roof, the effect both as 

 to light and otherwise would have been greatly superior. I have 

 seen a drawing by Allom, of an interior — a design, I believe, for a 

 chapel — which was so undisguisedly borrowed from St. Stephen's, 

 Walbrook, that it might be considered a rifacrianiento of it; and the 

 outline of the idea — so to speak, was there filled up gracefully and 

 artistically, and the original skeleton transformed into life and 

 beauty. 



VII. At the risk of shocking the straitlaced prejudices of many, 

 I venture to question the propriety of invariably putting churches, 

 as we have done for some time past, into mediaeval costume, to 

 the exclusion of any other style. In villages, and otlier country 

 places, it is in character and at home, but seems quite out of 

 keeping in streets where every other (diject wears quite a modern 

 air, and denotes the reverse of mediaeval times and habits. I 

 admit that one tolerably sufficient, or I might call it cogent, 

 reason there may be for having recourse to a style at variance 

 with that of all suri'ounding buildings — namely, tlie very fact of 

 its being so much at variance, that the mere adoption of such 

 costume stands in lieu of other character — of that distinctive 

 character which an architect would else have to work out of 

 design. Do I then wish that for churches in the metropolis we 

 should turn to ^Vren for models, or return to that soi-disant- 

 classical style which was in vogue among us some twenty or 

 thirty years ago ? Most assuredly not; for while the old churches 

 in the City are almost without exception barbarously uncouth, the 

 modern ones are, with the exception of that of St. Pancras and 

 Hanover Chapel, desjierately dull and mean; and even St, Pancras 

 and the other might be greatly better in many respects than they 

 now are. — If such be the ease, why should I advocate the return to 

 a style in which so little that is satisfactory has been performed 

 for church architecture.' Why, it is precisely for the very reason 

 that so little has been done in it properly, and answerably to the 

 capaliilities of such style, that I could wish to see it resumed, — 

 but treated in a very difi'erent spirit, and so converted, as it easily 

 might be, into something very superior to what has hitherto been 

 made of it. Here I oughtj perhaps, to exjilain that "Easily" 

 refers rather to the plastic capabilities of the style itself, than 

 to tlie capiicity of the present race of architects for properly 

 availing themselves of those capa!;ilities. One thing that would 

 be an ini])ro\enient in itself, and also lead to otlier iminove- 

 nients, would he the ado]ition of In/prrl/irii/ /iylitini/^ either ac- 

 cording to the mode which Mr. Fergusson shows to have been 

 practised by the Greeks, namely, by upright openings in a cle- 

 restory in the roof, — or else by lanterns or skylights, after which 

 last manner the German M'alhalla is lighted. For artistic effect 

 nothing can equal such mode of admitting light; whereas, even 

 leaving efl^ect out of the question, the windows now employed for 

 cliiiiches are little better than architectural blemishes both inter- 

 nally and externally. Of course I mean in those churches vvhich 

 are not in the Gothic style, because there windows are among the 

 principal characteristics and beauties of the style, and the source 

 of great variety of design; while for so-called Grecian or modern 

 church architecture, they are just the reverse. So far from being 

 made ornamental in any way within the buildings, they are there 

 left mere naked apertures, without any sort of dressings or attempt 

 at such embellishment as might be conferred upon them; and 

 there being nothing corresponding to mullions and tracery to fill 

 up the apertures themselves or give occasion to design, their ap- 



