162 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[June, 



V. Of Sansovino's works, and the Inter soliool of Venetian ar- 

 cliitecture, Mr. Ruskin says notliintr, altliouRli tliey would afford 

 studies of a more practical nature than do tlie edifices wliicli lie so 

 frreatly extols. (_)n the other hand he says, Init merely in general 

 terms, that Venice atfords "a model" — that is, J suppose, models — • 

 "of domestic liothic, so prand, so coni|)lote, so nobly systematised, 

 that, to my mind, there never existed an architecture with so 

 stern a claim to our reverence." Such then being the case, it 

 would have been no more than proper to have specified some ex- 

 amples of that particular and less-known class; pointing' out at 

 the same time, with some degree of distinctness, the peculiar 

 merits which would seem to justify his very high, and now appa- 

 rently very extravagant, encomium. Some such explanatory com- 

 ment and critical desciiption is all the more needed, because we 

 have hitlierto had none at all with regard to what he speaks of, or 

 r.tther merely hints at, we being left entirely at a loss to know 

 '.vliether he alludes to examples that are to be met with in Cicog- 

 nara's work, or other publications, or to some that have been nei- 

 ther described nor delineated. If it be only to the former, few 

 will agree with him as to the excellence of Venetian Domestic 

 (iothic, for it certainly is anything but a model to be at all fol- 

 lowed at the present day, — assuredly not by us, who have far 

 better models here at home. 



VI. Though he could charitably throw a mite, or rather lump, of 

 admiration to the British Museum — and that building certainly 

 stands in need of such charity — Mr. Ruskin has very little admira- 

 tion for English architecture generally, and none at all for one 

 structure which we have hitherto been deservedly proud of. 

 King's College Chapel, Cambridge, finds no favour at all in his 

 enlightened eyes, for he scruples not to stigmatise it as "a piece 

 of architectural juggling"! Again, elsewhere, he says: "What a 

 host of ugly church towers have we in England, with pinnacles at 

 the corners, and none in the middle ! How many buildings like 

 King's College Chapel, looking like tables upside down, witli their 

 four legs in the air!" — a kind of criticism on a par with that which 

 likens spires to extinguishers, and window pediments to cocked- 

 liats. "Knock down," he adds, "a couple of pinnacles" — perhaps 

 he means tlie turrets — "at either end in King's College Chapel, 

 and you will have a kind of proportion instantly." After this, our 

 "Oxford" man would do well not to visit Cambridge, lest some 

 Cambridge man should knock a couple of his teeth down his 

 throat, not only in return for the compliment, but to give his 

 mouth "a kind of proportion instantly." — Well, perhaps the mo- 

 dern King's College, in Somerset-place, satisiies him much better 

 than the other. Indeed, any one who admires the British Museum 

 can very reasonably afford to admire that building also, and dis- 

 cover in it — at least, by the aid of a lamp — the desirable quality of 

 nobleness. 



VII. Or perhaps the British Museum is something quite un- 

 pai'alleled in this kingdom, in comparison with which St. George's 

 Hall, at Liverpool, is a mere puny and common-place piece of 

 architecture; for i\Ir. Ruskin, strutting in tragic buskin, assures 

 us that "all we do is small and mean, if not worse, — thin and 

 wasted and unsubstantial. It is not modern work only; we have 

 built like frogs and mice since the thirteenth century (except only 

 in our castles)"! Like frogs and mice ! what their architecture 

 may be I know not, but no doubt, if it exist at all, it must be very 

 ancient and very Homeric. One thing, however, is very certain — 

 that our "Lamplighter" has neither seen nor otherwise knows 

 anything of such modern JInglish works as Blenheim and Castle 

 Howard, or Greenwich Hospital; or, unless his face is of brass — 

 of the same metal as his lamps — he could never had the effrontery 

 to taunt us with having done nothing but what is mean and small 

 — thin, wasted, and unsubstantial. The idea of Blenheim being 

 uii.siihxfrintiii/, would be considered a very substantial qualification 

 for Bedlam. 



\'III. Among many other crotchets, of which the title of his 

 book may stainl for one, Mr. Ruskin lays it down as a law that 

 "all the most lovely forms are directly taken fi-om natural objects," 

 and further assumes "the converse of this — namely, that forms 

 which are not taken from natural idjjects iniisf be ugly;" — which 

 surely amounts to another qualification for Bedlam. Were such 

 the fact, Mr. Ruskin, who, notwithstanding all his lamplight, must 

 here have been groping quite in the dark, might have spared him- 

 self the trouble of saying anything at all about beauty, since the 

 very law which he would establish would at once convict architec- 

 ture of being necessarily ugly in the main, its forms being al- 

 together conventional, and it admitting of the imitation of natu- 

 ral forms, vegetable or animal, only in sculptural accessories or 

 details. Even in those details, too, which are borrowed from 

 plants and foliage, an abstract and funnalUvd imitation, instead of 



a direct and mimic one, ought to be adopted. Nature may very 

 properly be looked to for fresh hints and motifs, but it is a great 

 error to attempt, as some seem now inclined to do, to engraft 

 botany upon architecture. So far from contributing to or en- 

 hancing beauty, all direct imitation of the kind is likely to be 

 attended with a ccmtrary effect. You may, if you like— supposing 

 such decoration suitable to the particular occasion, represent foli- 

 age twined round the shaft of a column ; hut it must be uniform 

 and regulated, for to show it iinturalli) as that of a real climbing 

 plant which had so grown accidentally, would be a mere conceit, 

 — at variance with the nature of architecture itself, and, although 

 in a different way, as unnatural as trees clipped into artificial 

 forms. 



IX. "There are many forms of so-called decoration in architec- 

 ture," continues Mr. Ruskin, "habitual, and received therefore 

 with approval, or at all events without any venture at expression 

 of dislike, which I have no hesitation in asserting to be not orna- 

 ment at all, but to be ugly things, the expense of which ought in 

 truth to be set down in the architect's contract as ^ For Monstrifi- 

 cation.' 1 believe we regard these customary deformities with a 

 savage complacency [complacency of a savage would be less of a 

 bull], as an Indian does his flesh patterns and paint. I believe that 

 I can prove them to be monstrous, and I hope hereafter to do so 

 conclusively." — AVhat a cruelly tantalising hereafter! And so in 

 the meanwliile we are to remain in a state of darkness and savage 

 complacency, without so much as a single gleam of lamplight to 

 enable us to guess what those terrible deformities are, and whether 

 they belong to all the styles we practice, or only to certain of 

 them. It will be well if we do not, when duly enlightened by 

 Mr. Ruskin, discover that a great deal has been and will be ex- 

 pended on the new Palace of AVestminster for mere Monstrifica- 

 tion. 



X. In speaking of the Greek "egg-and-dart" moulding, our man 

 of lamps and liglit babbles somewhat lack-a-daisily about birds'- 

 nests and rounded pebbles; — whereas birds'-nests and pebbles have 

 just as much to do with the matter as ladies' ringlets have with 

 Ionic volutes. Unless there existed direct evidence to the con- 

 trary, plain common-sense would infer that such pattern was 

 adopted for the carving of the ecliinut,; as being well adapted to 

 the contour of that member, and producing, together with beauty 

 of design, much effect of light and shade. Speaking of the Port- 

 cullis, he is obliged to admit that "there is no family resemblance 

 between it and cobwebs and heetles'-wings." Into what strange 

 extravagancies a man who is sensible enough in some things, may 

 be led by such crazy crotchets as is that of referring or endeavour- 

 ing to refer almost everything connected with architecture to some 

 prototype in nature, as its express model. Cobwebs are, I will 

 venture to assert, the very last things that would have been 

 thought of by those who invented the portcuEis. Rhinoceros 

 hides for themselves would have been infinitely more to the pur- 

 pose. 



XI. Wrapped-np and perhaps mystified by his own recondite 

 fancies, Mr. Ruskin has quite overlooked one very awkward con- 

 sequence res\ilting from his own doctrine, for if it be, as he would 

 have us believe, that forms 7iot taken from natural objects 7Jiust be 

 ugly, how prodigiously ugly must all furniture be. Yet, consider- 

 ing his ingenuity and liveliness of imagination in detecting analo- 

 gies and resemblances that never occurred to any other mortal, ho 

 may be able perhaps to find out some natural objects that served 

 as models for tables and chairs. As to beds, they of course come 

 from — the bottoms of rivers. 



XII. Mr. Ruskin frequently speaks very unguardedly, uttering 

 whatever conies uppermost without giving it a second tliought or 

 any after consideration. Although they have ever been considered 

 equallv legitimate and beautiful architectural decorations, he will 

 not tolerate either festoons or wreaths. "Uo not," he says, "carve 

 the images of garlands looking as if they had been used in the 

 last procession, and hung up to dry [!] and serve next time 

 withered. AVhy not also carve pegs and hats upon them.?" The 

 interrogation is no doubt meant to be smart, and nothing less than 

 a clincher, nevertheless it seems to me to show merely downright 

 silliness; for if that be valid argument, it would serve just as 

 well if turned quite differently, and directed against what Mr. 

 Ruskin himself certainly would be very loth to have hit,- — since, 

 just as well might it be said, for instance, do not carve leaves or 

 flowers upon the top of a column, where they cannot possibly 

 grow, therefore look as if they had been merely stuck up to dry in 

 tlie sun, before being used for culinary or medicinal purposes. 

 AVhy not, as columns are said to have heads, give them either 

 wigs or hats to keep their heads warm, especially those which are 

 obliged to stand in the open air.? Hats, however, would suit only 



