18^5.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



Chamber of Di-puties at Paris, the London University, the National 

 Gallery, and the new Roy.il Exchange. The first of these is rforft- 

 ca.s7i//(, or has all its twelve columns in front ; tlie second decastylc 

 dipruityle, or with ten coUiiiins in front, and two intercoKinins — conse- 

 quently one column, on racli flank : while bolli the otliers areoclasli/le 

 diprostyk, with the addition of two columns within, making altogether 

 Imlve. But if they so far agree in plan — other resemblance is out of 

 the question, — the two last examples diflering materially in regard to 

 the position of the inner colunnis, which in the first of them are placed 

 parallel to the two centre ones in front, so as to form a dishjie in aiilis 

 recess; whereas in tlie other the two inner columns are put behind 

 the third column from each angle of the front, and their architraves 

 extend from front to birk, or across the plan, which is thus divided 

 into three compartments in the proportion of three to two; that is, 

 the centre one is equal to three intercolunins in width, and each of the 

 others to two. Of these examples then, no two are alike, although 

 all agree in having twelve columns ; and what is more, the Gly()tothek 

 portico ditVers decidedly from every one of them ; tlienfore, even to 

 be told that it is oclastyle would still leave it quite doubtful how the 

 remaining four columns are disposed. The most obvious supposition 

 would be that there are two on each flank, making it triproatyle, or 

 projecting three intercolunins ; whereas, it is in fact »io;(0/)ros<;//f, or 

 projects only one intercolumn, and has within a second row of four 

 columns in anlis, or five open intcrcolurans, dividing the inner or re- 

 cessed portion of the plan from the outer or projecting one. It is nol, 

 indeed, every one who could explain this technically, but that any one 

 who had seen the portico should merely say of it that it has twelve 

 columns, without taking notice of so important a circumstance as that 

 of four of them being behind the others, is assuredly strange. 



V. At present, the new streets from Leicester Square and Oxford 

 Street, to Holborn and Bloomsbury, promise very poorly. In favour 

 of what has actually been done or is doing, little more is to be said 

 than that the fronts of the houses will not present the appearance of 

 so many separate upright slices, nor will the windows be so crowded 

 together as is usual in shop streets; but beyond that, little or no im- 

 provement is as yet discernible. We perceive the old faulty system 

 of putting cornices hentalh the uppirmost windows, instead of over 

 them, still adhered to, although such practice may fairly be termed 

 nonsensical, as being contrary to architectural me.initjg, because a cor- 

 nice so placed does not express its purpose as the eaves of the roof. 

 Subordinate cornices, or string-courses partaking of that character, 

 arc certainly allowable enough, but then, in order for them to be sub- 

 ordinate, there must be a principal one, crowning tlie entire elevation. 

 if that be omitted, all that is above whatever other cornice there may 

 be, looks quite unfinished, and produces an air of poorness and mea- 

 greuess that is net to be overcome by embellishment applied else- 

 where. It was to be hoped that what had been done in Maddox 

 Street would have been looked at as exhibiting a specimen of street 

 architecture of superior quality. We might at least endeavour to get 

 out of the old track, and new streets of the kind in question certainly 

 aftbrd opportunity for making such attempt, because should it prove 

 unsatisfactory in itself no very great harm is done, and even compara- 

 tive failure might yet give us something far better, and at all events 

 more novel, than what we are now likely to obtain. If we are not to 

 experiment ilize upon such occasions, when arf we to do so at all? and 

 if we do not do that, liow arc vvc ever to arrive at, or in any degree 

 approximate towards, what is urged upon us by some as one main de- 

 sideratum — namely, a style of our own ? 



Vi. In regard to that same "style of our own," it does not seem as 

 if we were likely to get it in practice, even from any of those who 

 warmly advocate it iu theory. We are told that both construction 

 and materials ought to be allowed to show themselves more undis- 

 guisedly, and to be made to subserve to characteristic design and de- 

 coration ; yet no one cares to make the attempt, at any rate not so as 

 to exhibit any really fresh elenicnls of design, capable of either serv- 

 ing as llie groundwork of a fresh slyle, or of being amalgamated with 

 any existing style. On the other hand, there seems to prevail among 

 us a feeling diametrically opposite and op[iosed in tendency — a most 

 obstinate determination to resist all attempts at further progress, to 

 move, if at all, only in a retrograde direction, by falling back upon 

 " precedents," and adhering to them with the most slavish literality ; 

 neither is that all, it being further demanded of us that we should 

 attach an esoteric and mystical value to certain styles and architec- 

 tural convention ilisuis peculiar to a creed we reject, and to forms of 

 worship we have divorced ourselves from. So long as it be only back- 

 wards, innovation is absolutely meritorious, it is then praiseworthy 

 revivalism.' We are told, by implication at least, that so far from 

 hankering after any thing new, any thing precisely adapted to our pre- 

 sent purposes and wants, and distinctly stamped as belonging to our 

 own age, we ought to take refuge in despair, and congratulate ourselves 



upon our utter incapacity of accomplishing anything of the sort. And 

 most assuredly will the prophecy of such incapacity be fulfilled, if we 

 persist in never making the attempt — an attempt, however, be it re- 

 membered, not to be made by every one or any one, but those who have 

 within tlicni some spark of original mind and the flame of geniality. 

 Almost every preceding period or century, which has had any archi- 

 tectural slyle at all, has had one that has been more or less peculiar to 

 itself. Of the nineteenth century, on the contrary, future historians 

 of art will have to speak as that of mere imitation in architecture — 

 one which contributed nothing to the stock bequeathed us by former 

 ages, and which even took vast credit to itself for dealing exclusively 

 in second-hand ideas. At no other period do we observe anything 

 like retrogression — ary direct imitation, return to, and re-assumption 

 of a style that had been laid aside, as having, according to one of 

 the queer cant phrases now in vogue, "performed its mission." Nei- 

 ther Norman nor any subsequent style was ever employed when once 

 laid aside, not even for occasional purposes, or at the dictates of indi- 

 vidual taste. The Elizabethan architects did not ever think of erecting 

 mansions aiming at t'.ie character, at least at the titles, of either feudal 

 castles or abbeys. Although they both borrowed in their turn, neither 

 Rome copied Athens, nor Byzantium, Rome. Again, even on the so- 

 called "revival" of ancient architecture in modern Italy, more of the 

 spirit of free imitalion than of direct copying was manifested ; a style 

 of different ti xture from that of any former was then wrought out ; — 

 antique and modern were worked up together as woof and warp of a 

 new species of tissue. And of what was thus elaborated we may now 

 behold specimens both in Fall Mall and St. James's Street, — astylar 

 in the one, columnar in the other. 



VII. It is rather overweening antiquarian taste with its prejudices, 

 than real architectural sympathy, at the present day, which causes so 

 much stress to be laid, as is now done, upon strict, even bigotted ad- 

 herence to positive precedent in all matters architectonic. Nor is 

 this greatly to be wondered at, since antiquarianism is no Janus ; it 

 looks only backwards, till it is petrified into a pillar of salt. It re- 

 nounces all claim to vitality of ideas — or any ideas of its own. It can 

 imagine nothing but what has been — will not even receive anything 

 else, but maintains that the " has been" is what always ought to be. 

 It judges of everything by precedent ; it has no other touch of criti- 

 cism ; where it does not grope about in dark places with tliat,it can see 

 nothing. Bring it out into the broad daylight, and itstands aghast! — 

 completely bewildered by objects which it is utterly unacquainted with 

 and mortified to find that its own link, which showed so brightly amid 

 surrounding gloom, does not look very much like the irradiating flame 

 of genius. Of course all this will be set down by a certain set for 

 exceedingly profane, (reasonable, and heretical— scurrilous, scandalous. 

 Perhaps 1 shall be charged with endeavouring to decry and depreciate 

 antiquarian and archffiulogical studies. I certainly think they might 

 be pursued somewhat more ration illy, and with less of that niinule 

 and micrological pedantry, than they usually are. It is good to know 

 all that has been done, but it is foolish to abide by it obstinately, and 

 to refuse to tolerate anything that is not recommended by the sanction 

 of antiquated precedent. Studying is one thing, and copying another ; 

 of the first we cannot, perhaps, have too much, of the second hardly 

 loo little. 



VIII. One very great fault in the generality of papers upon archi- 

 tectural topics in miscellaueous periodicals is, that they almost inva- 

 riably set out with a quantity of tedious humdrum about architecture 

 itself, its principles, origin, and progress ; merely repeating what has 

 been repeated ad nauseam before, without adding a single fresh idea 

 or remark. The avowed and immediate subject, and which therefore 

 ought to be treated as such, is sometimes smothered altogether by ir- 

 relevant and useless matter of that kind, so that if you skip in order 

 to come to the matter in hand at once, you perhaps find that yon have 

 to skip to the very last page of all, and then find au apologetic phrase 

 of "want of room," " cuir limits," and so forth, in excuse for saying 

 nothing further at all. Writers of that class must always drag in some 

 schoolboy impertinence, or anile rigmarole and twaddle ; and the 

 mention of the Royal Exchange would fur them be the signal to begin 

 to cackle about Pericles and the Farthenon. 



SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS. 

 Sir, — As Mrs. Gwatkin has kindly allowed me to publish the re- 

 mainder of the extracts made from Sir Joshua's private memorandum 

 book, I will proceed. 



Extracts. 

 July 7th, 17G6.— Mr. Pelham, painted in lake and white and black 



1* 



