1849.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



163 



the frentlemen or Dorics; the two lady orders would he distin- 

 guished hy caps and bonnets. 



XIII. In his next section or paragraph— for JMr. Ruskin's 

 book is divided into numbered paragrajihs just like this Note-Book 

 of mine, — he falls foul of what he calls "one of the worst ene- 

 mies of modern Gothic architecture — the dripstone, in the shape 

 of the handle of a frying-pan" — no, not frying-pan — "of a pair of 

 drawers" — pshaw! wrong again! — "the handle of a chest of 

 drawers, wliich is used over the square-headed windows of what 

 we call Elizabethan buildings." Really that is lifindling Eliza- 

 bethan architecture very unceremoniously! That form he assures 

 us is the ugliest possibly, and to convince us that it is so, exclaims: 

 "Look abroad into the landscape, and see if you can discover any 

 one [form] so bent and fragmentary as that of this strange wind- 

 lass-looking dripstone. You cannot. It is a monster." And so 

 Mr. Raskin goes on abusing the poor dripstone, till the foam nearly 

 drips from his own mouth. 



XIV. The Ionic capital fares very little better than the Eliza- 

 bethan dripstone; for our great enlightener says that in his 

 opinion it is, "as an architectural invention, exceedingly base." 

 Yet, if so, there must be a great deal of baseness and bad taste in 

 the British Museum, which he nevertheless professes to admire: 

 although, except the Ionic columns and their capitals, there is 

 nothing to admire — at least, not in the facade. Probably, how- 

 ever, he does not extend his admiration to the front, although he 

 does not say so. — Reserving for some other occasion my remarks 

 as to his injurious opinion of the Ionic capital, I now pass on at 

 once to another strange antipathy, accompanied witli inconsistency 

 also. His dislike of Heraldry as embellishment in architecture 

 has been already noticed, and for such dislike there is certainly 

 some reason, the forms and combinations employed for it being for 

 the most part very monstrous and tasteless. He goes, however, 

 very much further in his dislikes, and would proscribe mottoes, 

 legends, and inscriptions; and that for the oddest reason — if rea- 

 son it may be called — conceiveable, namely, because "of all things 

 unlike nature, the forms of letters are perhaps the most so"!! 

 Nevertheless, he afterwards either conquers or quite forgets that 

 unfortunate antipathy to letters, wlien belauds "tliatgood custom, 

 wliich was of old universal" of inscribing mottoes and sentences 

 even on the walls of ordinary dwelling-houses. It is an awkward 

 thing for a writer to have such a terribly short menuuy as to con- 

 tradict himself point-blank at different places in the same book. 

 Here I take my leave of Mr. Ruskin for the present. Having 

 shown up some of his crotchets and absurdities, in my next Fas- 

 ciculus I will bring forward some of the really instructive and 

 valuable points in his work. And one of them is truly limiinous, 

 throwing so much light upon an important matter wliich nearly all 

 other writers have helped to obscure, that it ought to be written 

 on the walls of every architect's office. 



ARCHITECTURE,— ROYAL ACADEMY. 



In not better encouraging the Exhibition got up by the Ar- 

 chitectural Association, the profession showed as little policy as 

 they did liberality of feeling, for most assuredly an ojjposition 

 shop is very much needed to render them independent of the 

 Academy; since even did that body show itself more disposed 

 towards architecture than it now does, the accommodation which 

 it can afford it is so inadequate to that of the architectural 

 subjects which are actually hung up and catalogued, that not 

 above half, if so many, can be so seen as to be intelligible; and 

 that inconvenience is still farther increased by the preposterous 

 system of hanging, which is to occupy the Hue and thereabouts 

 by some of the larger drawings, no matter what tliev are, while 

 smaller ones, which, if they are worth looking at at all, ought 

 to be immediately upon the line, are hung either much too 

 high or much too low. Surely it would be better were the Aca- 

 demy to admit fewer drawings of the kind than they do, and 

 to be more scrupulous in the selection of them; whereas, they 

 not only take in very inferior designs, together with what are 

 mere views of buildings — and those generally very stale in subject, 

 — but they actually hang up some of the paltriest and most unin- 

 teresting productions of all, upon the very line. More tlian one 

 design is so placed this season, that would have been favoured bv 

 being put into an obscure situation; — wOiether those which are so 

 put are treated exactly as they deserve, we cannot undertake to 

 say; but what we do see, do not, upon the whole, impress us very 

 favourably. We perceive more of falling-off than of any ad- 

 vance; — no accession of fresh talent, no fresh subjects, and no 



freshness of ideas; on the contrary, much affectation of antiquated 

 fashions in building, to a degree withal that in some instances 

 amounts to masquerading, and is as preposterous as would be tlie 

 adoption of tlie phraseology of our elder dramatists in modern 

 conversation. Tlius. because they are unable to extract its better 

 qualities from its defects, architects give us Elizabethan with all 

 its wonted dross and coarseness — pure only because it is unpurified; 

 wherefore, so far from being aii\' merit, its puriti/ becomes a posi- 

 tive fault; and of such purity the present Exhibition affords too 

 many instances. 



Even were the show of architectural designs more satisfactory 

 in all other respects, it is sadly deficient in variety, the subjects 

 being too nearly of tlie same east as regards the class of buildings 

 shown, and also style and treatment. Gothic and Old English 

 or Elizabethan predominate almost to the exclusion of any otiier 

 style; and what few others there are, are not at all remarkable. 

 There is, indeed, a large drawing (No. 1090) of "Tlie South 

 Facade of tJie Assize Courts at Liverpool" — but besides that, it is 

 a very poor and flat performance as a drawing, whicli is the only 

 share' the exhibitor can claim in it: the design itself shows merely 

 the talent we have lost, instead of any that we have gained to re- 

 place it. Architects do not now-a-days care, it seems, to let us see 

 more than what is actually done or likely to be done. They have 

 no notion of putting forth ideas gratuitously; or if any such pro- 

 ductions are offered, they are stifled by the I'eto of those who ex- 

 clude or admit as to them seems proper For aught we know, it 

 may be the Academy's Chaplain ! who holds the St. Peter's keys 

 of the Architectural Room. Although such office appears more pro- 

 perly to belong to the Professor of Architecture, we feel assured 

 — at any rate would fain persuade ourselves, that he does not even 

 participate in it, or else matters would be managed differently, and 

 very much better than they now are. What kind of designs are 

 admitted any one can see: what are rejected is not so easily as- 

 certained, they being known only to the authors of them, and 

 their immediate friends. We ourselves can speak confidently as 

 to one instance of rejection last year — namely, that of the design 

 for improving the facade of the National Gallery, which, as will 

 be remembered, was afterwards shown at the Architectural Asso- 

 ciation's Exhibition. \Vhat could have occasioned the exclusion 

 of a subject likely to excite some attention and interest, when su 

 many dull and humdrum designs obtain admission, is rather to be 

 guessed at than said; for though if uttered our suspicions might 

 be deemed chimerical, we fancy that could the truth be proved, 

 they would be found to come very near it. We are all the more 

 confirmed in them, because we this year find a design (No. 1091) 

 for a building for the Vernon Gallery, which seems to have been 

 received solely on account of its insignificance and harmlessness, 

 for it is certainly not at all calculated to lead to any stir or agita- 

 tion. Instances of very unfair rejection this season have been 

 rumoured; and if tlie designs turned away were at all above me- 

 diocrity, it was notliing less than scandalous and treacherous on 

 the part of the Academy to serve them so, and at the same time 

 to accept so many infra-mediocrity things as they have done. 

 Fortunately, there is now a means of exposing the tyrannical con- 

 duct and injustice of the Academy towards architecture, because 

 those who have been unjustly treated by that body, can now ajipeal 

 to the public through the Architectui-al Association; which society, 

 if it mind what it is about, may easily turn the conduct of the 

 Academy in regard to architecture, to excellent account. 



Although we do not know what arcliitectufal drawings have been 

 turned away, we do know that they have turned away models alto- 

 gether, which is an innovation quite the feverse of improvement. 

 At first we thought that the absence of works of that class was 

 purely accidental and owing to none liaving been sent in; whereas, 

 we learn from a contemporary tliat a model by Mr. Dighton, of a 

 large building now erecting under a government department, was 

 actually turned away. It being a large building says nothing for 

 its interest as an architectural subject and its fitness for exhibition, 

 but its being by Mr. Dighton is of itself sufficient guarantee for 

 the excellence of the model. The banishing models is certainly 

 quite a new freak on the part of the Academy. Had models been 

 turned away or refused admittance in order that a screen for draw- 

 ings might be fixed along the middle of the room, there would have 

 been sufficient reason for doing so, although even in that case 

 models might have been allowed to find a place in the hall. 

 The least that could have been done was to give notice in their 

 advertisements that models had been put under ban. The Aca- 

 demy allow it to be seen that they are no friends to architecture, 

 and seem also to think that it has none in ^iny otlier quarter; at 

 least, not any who eitlier can or dare to remonstrate with them 

 for their treatment of it. ^Ve almost begin to think with the 



22* 



