32t 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[JNOVEMBEB, 



intention, and is sure to pniiliice a certain dep:ree of effect, thoug-h 

 it may be no more than that of liprht and shade, and of what arises 

 from perspective appearance, owing- to the columns beinff in a 

 plane considerably advanced before that of the wall beliind them. 

 In the buildiuff here spoken of, not only are the Doric columns 

 ciuidyfil, but the intercoliinnis contain tii'O series of windows, which 

 are besides anytliintf but Doric, or rather quite anti-Doric, in 

 design; and, as if for the ex])ress purpose of rendering- them more 

 so than they else would have been, those of the upper or first-floor 

 liave very light metal-work balconies, which have hardly the look 

 of affording sufficient security, the hand-rail being supported only 

 at its extremities. As if for the direct purpose of presenting a 

 strong contrast to those balconies, and also the order itself, the 

 entablature of the latter is surmounted by an Itdlhin balustrade — 

 or rather by an uninte»rupted line of balusters; for, by way, per- 

 ha])s, of originality or novelty, the balusters are continued from 

 end to end, without any ])edestals between them over the columns, 

 or even at their terminatiiuis! I might go on to point out many 

 other eccentricities, but w ith my characteristic good iititiire, refrain 

 fiom doing so, — being quite sure that Professor Cockerell, if no 

 one else, will thank me for abridging my criticism. 



ON ARCHITECTURAL CRITICISM. 



.\rchitects appear to entertain so strong a dislike of criticism, 

 that it amounts almost to antipathy, ill-disguised by professed 

 contempt. If not illiberal, such dislike towards, and deprecation 

 of, criticism is at least impolitic, and inconsistent too. It par- 

 takes of illiberality, inasmuch as it seems to say that critics are all 

 alike mere smatterers, very ill-qualified, if not totally unqualified, 

 for the office they assume; it shows impolicy, for to silence criti- 

 cism would not be the very best way of promoting the study of 

 their art; and it shows inconsistency also, — for if they are of 

 opinion that those who are not professional and practical men, 

 either say nothing to the purpose, or else do actual mischief by 

 misleading others, why then do not they themselves, instead of 

 merely complaining of it, endeavour to remedy the evil by in- 

 structing the public better, and by exposing the erroneous opinions 

 or absurdities, and perhaps injustice too, of those who now set 

 themselves up for critics.'' There are now sufficient facilities for 

 doing so in the promptest and most direct manner, and if archi- 

 tects do not choose to avail themselves of them, so it must be; but 

 then, do not let them complain of a state of things which they 

 themselves encourage by their own silence and supineness. Were 

 they to give the puldic sound, intelligent, and really artistic criti- 

 cism, the latter would no longer be duped or misled by that of mere 

 jiretenders — of shallow, one-sided, purblind praters and writers, — 

 iiecause they would no longer tolerate it. 



Even the profession themselves are not free from error; for they 

 commit a mistake attended with serious ill consequence to the in- 

 terests of architecture itself, when, though they would have it looked 

 u])on as a Fine Art, they in a manner claim for it immunity from 

 criticism, as being one which can be properly appreciated by tliose 

 alone who actually practise it, and who are acquainted with con- 

 struction and all its processes. — Strange doctrine, and surely as 

 unfortunate and short-sighted as it is strange. Instead of invit- 

 ing people to study the artistic branch of architecture, it deters 

 them from even attempting it; telling them, in fact, though not in 

 direct words, that it is one by far too exclusively technical to be 

 liiastered by any one who does not apply himself to it ]>rofession- 

 ally; whereas, could the profession themselves see an inch beyond 

 their noses — which they do not appear to do at present, they would 

 perceive how much it would be to the advantage of themselves as 

 a body, and to that of their art also, were they to break down the 

 barriers with which they have hemmed it in, and to popularise the 

 study of it to the utmost of their power. I)irect proof is afforded 

 of this, by the great, and we may call it rapid, advance which has 

 of late years been made in one style — namely, the mediaeval; and 

 rather in spite of the ])rofession themselves, it urging them on in 

 a direction which else they might never have taken — at least, not 

 to the same extent. The impulse came from without: it was given 

 by antiquaries and archieologists — in other words, by mere anm- 

 iKum, but earnest ones, who, by means of various and numerous 

 publications, have greatly facilitated the study of that style, and 

 created a widely-diffused interest for it. And amateurs of that par- 

 ticular class now form so numerous atul also so influential a body, 

 that the profession dare not open their lips against them; on the 

 contrary, are glad to accept them as patrons. 'I'hat as far as the 

 various styles of Gothic are concerned much good has been af- 



fected by the real of non-professional students and writers is not 

 to be denied, it being thev who have in a manner forced the pro- 

 fession to render themselves practically conversant with those 

 styles. At the same time, it must be confessed that what hag so 

 far been done for good, falls greatly short of what it niight, and 

 what — let us hope so — it will be. The interest so created at pre- 

 sent extends to very little nmre than a single style of architecture 

 and a single class of buildings; and not only that, but the predi- 

 lection for Gothic which has been thus fostererl, is too over- 

 weening and exclusive, and apt to be aceomjianied with prejudice 

 against, and contempt for, <ither styles which have at least this in 

 their favour, that they acciunmodate themselves infinitely better 

 to our purposes and ]iractice generally at the present day; conse- 

 quently must be retained by us, whatever modifications they may 

 henceforth undergo. Again, the impulse given to the study of 

 meditpval architecture ha\ing proceeded chiefly from those addicted 

 to antiquarianism, they have given to the study itself a bias much 

 stronger towards the archse<ilogical and historical, than the a;sthetic 

 and artistic. It is familiarity with dates, and the distinctions be- 

 tween one style and another, and similar matters, that is displayed, 

 ratlier than any power of critical investigation and judgment. 

 All is yr'iiit that comes to the archaeologist's mill: everything is 

 treasured-up as a specimen, every specimen venerated as a relique; 

 all the more precious, perhaps, on account of its singularity — 

 namely, its singular ugliness. Thei-e is by far too much of the 

 "chronicling small-beer" — and some very flat and stale too — in 

 what emanates from architectural writers and teachers of the 

 historical class; and it very rarely happens that a drop of the wine 

 of genuine and generous criticism is mingled with their "small- 

 beer" stuff'. 



Generous Critich-m ! iSIany readers w ill, no doubt, here protest 

 that the expression is a dowurijiht contradiction in terms, — which 

 it certainly is according to the sense vulgarly attached to the word 

 Criticism. Of criticism, as of most other things, there are two 

 sorts — the bad and the good; and of the former there are again 

 two other sorts, of which it is impossible to say which is the worst 

 — that which consists of rancorous and reckless abuse, or that 

 which deals only in equally reckless and base puff: 



*' Like biin wbii just to get a iliiiner, 

 AVoulfl mnkt; n saint of any sinner; 

 Or else in blHekest eoloiirs puint 

 '1 he worthiest man or meekest saint." 



Such, h'o-wever, is not criticism, but the prostitution of it. What, 

 then, is true criticism .'' The answer is not very difficult : it is 

 that which, founded upon a diligent study of Art, is ever loyal to 

 the real interests of Art; which ever remains unbribed and incor- 

 rupt; and which 



■ Nobly dares to show 



Fattits in a friend, or merits in a foe." 



Whether it commends or condemns, criticism should show itself to 

 he honest, and that the opinions which it delivers are the results of 

 imjiartial and discriminating examination. Mere vague general 

 praise or censure may be uttered by any one; and so long as stuff 

 of that sort will pass for criticism, it may truly enough be said 

 that "Critics all are ready-made," and that criticism is very easy 

 work. But the criticism worth having, that w hich instructs both 

 the public and the followers of Art themselves, nnist be first learnt 

 by an apprenticeship to it of study and reflection. Of such criti- 

 cism the ]iraise is worth having, because it is not bestowed indis- 

 criminately u])on every one; whereas some are so la\ish of that 

 article, that, becoming as common as gold in California, it ceases 

 to be jirecious. "My good Madam," said Dr. Johnson once to a 

 lady who was complimenting him in very fulsome style, "before 

 you are so prodigal of your praise, do for a moment consider how 

 much it is worth." The same might be said to the dealers in Puff'. 

 Still, it may be thought that how ever proper it may be for criticism 

 to bestow praise with some degree of reserve, and only where it 

 can be shown to be merited, there is no occasion for its administer- 

 ing censure: where it cannot commend, it can at any rate be 

 silent; — yes, arul so holil out impunity to Pecksniffs, and allow 

 pu!)lic taste to be corrupted by Art-brummagem of all sorts. 



Were architectural criticism — for we confine ourselves to that — 

 fully exercised in the way which it ought to he, it would be influen- 

 tial for good in more ways than one. While it encouraged talent 

 and merit, it would check mere empty pretension; and, instructed 

 by sound criticism, the public would in time learn to distinguish 

 clearly betw een the one and the other, instead of trusting, as they 

 now do, to the voice of report, or being guided by the <'e/at attend- 

 ing mere vogue. Professional men would then perceive the neces- 

 sity of attending to the demands of criticism- — as they may, in 

 fact, be said to have done already in the case of Gothic architec- 

 ture. Criticism — that is, honest and sterling criticism — is a real 



