l8-i7.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



" Contemplating tliose columns of nearly 9 feet in diameter, but 

 which, formed of masonry of small stones, only look on a near ap- 

 proach like small turrets, one cannot help casting a lingering look 

 back on the portico of the Pantheon, and thinking that elevation of 

 insulated columns of granite of one single piece, though smaller in its 

 dimensions, grander in its conception, and more striking in effect, than 

 these clusters of large pillars, all reticulated with joints, and jammed 

 up against a wall." 



All these solecisms in the employment of pediments and columns 

 may be easily traced to the attempts to retain theybrms of Greek 

 trabeate architecture, after the invention of the arch. By means of 

 this invention the Romans were enabled to give to their edifices an 

 extent and diversity of form before unknown. It was no longer neces- 

 sary for the stability of a structure, that its roofs should be supported 

 directly from the ground by vertical columns, placed so close that the 

 intercolumniation might be spanned by a single block of stone. On 

 the contrary, the buildings were raised to many stories in height, and 

 both vertically and laterally were made up of that vast multiplicity of 

 parts which, judging by the eye alone, we should pronounce the main 

 /ormal distinction of Roman from simple Greek architecture. A na- 

 tural consequence of the invention of the arch was the vaulting of 

 roofs, which rendered the pediment generally unnecessary, and there- 

 fore adscititious. 



It is by no means to be inferred that the introduction of the arch 

 was prejudicial to the art. On the contrary, every new contrivance 

 by which construction is facilitated ought to be looked upon as a 

 direct benefit to architecture ; for the most liberal and elevated views 

 of an art are those which encourage its extension by every available 

 means. The injurious effects complained of by Hope arose, not from 

 the invention of the arch abstractedly considered, but from the inju- 

 dicious application of it. It had rendered almost all the Greek forms 

 uimecessary; they ought therefore to have been unreservedly aban- 

 doned in arcuate building, or at least those of them alone should have 

 been retained which were necessarily common to the two modes of 

 constrnction. 



The pediment was appropri.ite and had meaning where what Hope 

 aptly terms the spine of the roof (that is, the line formed by the two 

 inclined planes intersecting at their vertical angle) was continued 

 throughout the building from en 1 to end. Where, however, the roof 

 was flat, or surmounted by a horizontal entablature, as in Roman, 

 and subsequently in Lombardic, architecture, or where the structure 

 was crowned by a "ponderous attic," as in the case of St. Peter's, 

 and numerous modern English buildings to which it is unnecessary to 

 specify, it is clear that the pediment could have no real constructive 

 use. 



To the general reader we may appear unnecessarily minute in in- 

 sisting upon these points, because he is not aware how much prejudice 

 has to be surmounted in establishing them. A great change of opinion 

 on architectural subjects is, however, happily taking place, and we 

 trust that the day is not far distant when these observations will appear 

 superfluous arguments in favour of self-evident propositions. For 

 the present, however, we must be content to utter truisms, and to 

 illustrate in every possible way their application and effect. 



Flat-roofed buildings can never require pediments: let us apply 

 this rule to the new show-front of the British Museum, now nearly 

 completed. We will at once allow that there is something exceed- 

 ingly attractive in the long range of numerous columns there present- 

 ed to the eye. Columniatiun on an extensive scale has such peculiar 

 magnificence that the difficulty is rather to produce an ungraceful, 

 than a graceful, appearance by means of it. The architect of the 

 British Museum has, however, surmounted this difficulty to a great ex- 

 tent. Still, much remains that will captivate the general eye, and we 

 doubt not that those who prefer profusion of ornament to the right 

 use of it, will greatly admire the new fafade. But we are now ad- 

 dressing those wl.o are willing to estimate architecture not by the eye 

 aione, but by the judgment also. 



It is to be observed then, in the first place, that the British Museum, 

 though an isolated structure, in a position where it is seen from 

 many points of view, has only one side decorated, the decorations being 

 of course placed where they will be seen from the most frequented 

 street. 



*' Purpureas, late qui splendeat, unus et alter 

 Assuitur pannus." 



The pediment, consistently enough, is stuck on to the fajade, just as 

 the fa9ade is stuck on to the building. The horizontal entablatures of 

 the wings are either mere masks to conceal the real outline of the 

 roofs, or else the roofs are flat. On the latter supposition, it is quite 

 clear that the central pediment is placed where it does not define 

 the outline of another roof; for a glance will convince us that there is 

 not behind this pediment an inclined roof with its axis perpendicular 

 to the front of the building, and its spine continued " throughout the 

 whole length from end to end." 



In point of fact, this pediment has no more connection with the 

 building than the sign-boards frequently seen on the parapets of ta- 

 verns have with walls to which they are attached. The comparison 

 may be a homely one, but it exactly expresses the nature of the case 

 Similar remarks might be applied to the Mansion House, Buckingham 

 Palace,and numerous other buildings, in and out of London; but the 

 general principle is so clear, that it is useless to provoke unnecessary 

 opposition by pointing out all its consequences. 



Had not custom familiarised us with the absurdity, there would ap- 

 pear something inexpressibly ludicrous in the fashion of uniting the 

 front of a Greek temple to a modern secular square-built structure. 



It is well known that a systematic and growing opposition to Classic 

 architecture now exists in this country. Those who resist the novel 

 tenets and express their indignation at the term "Pagan," do not con- 

 sider that they themselves strengthen the arguments of their oppo- 

 nents by their adherence to debased Classic architecture. A barba- 

 rous confusion of different principles of construction can never be 

 permanent, however obstinately it may be defended; and it certainly 

 appears the most prudent course to give up a part of the contest at 

 once, and return to pure and faithful Classic architecture, than, by 

 blindly defending its most corrupt forms, to ensure the ultimate disuse 

 of every form of it. 



The attempt to combine the forms of trabeate and arcuate construc- 

 tion has produced, as all will admit wtio are not interested in the de- 

 nial, a strarge mongrel style, in which members, which had originally 

 significance and uiility, are distorted and disarranged in every con. 

 ceivable manner. Such architecture resembles a mere horlus siccus, 

 or herbal filled with botanical specimens ; for its relation to true ar- 

 chitecture is that of withered leaves to a living flora. Or is it not, 

 rather, an architectural Frankenstein, endued with vitality indeed — 

 but vitality of that monstrous kind which renders it only the more 

 hideous by adapting its individual members to strange, unnatural 



REMOVAL OF WESTMINSTER BRIDGE. 

 Many arguments have been urged in favour of the existing site of 

 Westminster Bridge ; those in favour of a new site have not yet been 

 communicated to the public. There can be no doubt that the Com- 

 missioners of Woods and Forests have wise and cogent reasons for 

 giving notice of their intention to apply for "an act to alter, amend 

 and repeal, several acts of Parliament passed during the reigns of 

 George II. and III., relative to Westminster Bridge, &c." And as 

 we give the Commissioners credit fur the best and most prudent mo- 

 tives, it cannot but be regretted that the public have of late years 

 fallen into the unhappy habit of judging for themselves on matters of 

 public interest. It has been argued (indiscreetly, no doubt) that the 

 collective opinion of the inhabitants of Westminster and Lambeth as 

 to the relative advantages of the new and old sites, is as valuable as 

 that of a Government commission. The idea that the latter possess 

 exclusive inlormatioa on the subject, and are therefore the muse cum- 



