1847.J 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



jection to apply with full force in the present instance, we may still 

 concede that an equestrian figure, exaggerated to gigantic for more 

 th;in heroif) dimensions, must require more than ordinary slvill in its 

 artistic treatment, and more than ordinary care to render the un- 

 natural magnitude inolTiUsive. Our visual ideas are all relative. The 

 giants of Brobdignag appeared to Gulliver hideous, and his own size 

 seemed horrible to the Lilliputians. 



The Wellington statue will, it is said, be removed to the space be- 

 tween the Horse Guards and the Enclosure in St. James's Park. 

 This removal is on many accounts commendable. A colossal figure, to 

 appear even tolerable, must be placed where the disparity of sur- 

 rounding objects is not offensively observable. Such a contrast is by 

 every means to be avoided, and the eye must be attracted by the ab- 

 solute, not by the comparative magnitude of the work of art. Colos- 

 sal figures have generally appeared best when standing on a wide open 

 plain, isolated from all other artificial objects. The Lion on the field 

 of Waterloo is so placed, standing apart from human habitation, on a 

 broad expanse of country, over which it is visible for miles round. 

 The appearance of the figure in such a situation is, we imagine — for 

 vie have never seen it except at a great distance — very effective. 

 The size of the object accords well with its solitude and its simple 

 character. 



By analogy, we may presume that this new memorial of the Water- 

 loo conflict should be similarly isolated. To find in London a situation 

 which would perfectly fulfil the conditions here suggested, is of course 

 impracticable, but the position in St. James's Park sufficiently satisfies 

 Uiem. Elevated on a simple plinth or base of steps, at a considerable 

 distance from the nearest building, the statue would no longer look a 

 heavy lump of metal; its size would, we may hope, apj>ear magnificent 

 — at present it seems merely unnatural. 



The circumstance of the statue being initially placed in its present 

 ridiculous position will prove by no means prejudicial to the interests 

 of art. On the contrary, the discussion which has arisen produces 

 this net result — the English people will no longer tolerate the ab- 

 surdity of statues elevated out of sight. The condemnation of the 

 present position of the Wellington Statue, and the ridicule heaped 

 on the Nelson Monument, will render the renewal of this kind of bar- 

 barism practically impossible. One great step has therefore been 

 taken in the progress of the doctrine of truth and fidelity in art. The 

 grand objection to the position of the Nelson and Wellington statues 

 is, that their merits or defects as works of art are inappreciable to 

 the ordinary powers of vision. The whole matter maybe reduced to 

 ft dilemma: if the statues be worth seeing, they should be put where 

 they can be examined ; if the statues be not worth seeing, thev ouwht 

 not to be erected as public monuments. 



As far as can be at present judged of the Wellington Statue, it is 

 not unworthy of being publicly exhibited. It would be unwise to an- 

 ticipate the opinion which will be formed of the statue when situated 

 more conveniently for examination; but to judge from the outline 

 (which is almost all that is now discernible), the composition, if not 

 possessed of extraordinary merit, is free from gross defects : and it is 

 stated that the work has been carefully finished and will bear a near 

 inspection. The new pedestal ought to be very simple and of ample 

 breadth, and its elevation ought to be regulated by this plain rule— the 

 best height to which a stalue can be raised is that at which it cm 

 be most conveniently examined. We have strong hopes that on such 

 a pedestal, and in such a commanding situation, the monument will 

 not prove unworthy of the events commemorated. 



The opinion of the Institute of British Architects respecting the 

 elevation of the stalue on the arch, corroborates the judgment already 

 formed by the public. The Report of the Institute is already before 

 our readers, and is worth a brief analysis; it consists of six para- 

 graphs, of which three are argumentative. The three reasons for 



which the Institute condemns the position of the statue are these 



first, because Mr. Burton does not like it ; secondly, because it in- 

 jures the architecture of the adjacent buildings (among which are 

 Apsley House and the " elegant" screen next to it; ; thirdly, because 

 it is an innovation. 



We should like to know which of these arguments satisfies the 

 reader: neither has much weight with ourselves. We do not fear 

 that the merits of Mr. Burton's arch will be destroyed, because we 

 are unable to perceive their existence : and the same consideration 

 removes all apprehension respecting Apsley House and the row of 

 stone columns adjacent to it. In the first place, the triumphal arch 

 displays eminently the fault of all its tribe— forms without purpose. 

 If the arch be real, its object must be to support a superstructure of 

 proportional size; a vault so enormous as this would never have been 

 erected without such a superstructure, had the least idea of construc- 

 tive propriety entered the mind of the architect. The vast arches 

 which form the portico beneath the Victoria Tower of the Houses of 

 Parliament are about as large as that in Piccadilly, but then they are 

 of a size corresponding to their purpose;— were it not intended to 

 support a vast tower upon them, they must appear ridiculous. It 

 seems to be forgotten that an arch is not an integral building, but only 

 a part of one, just as a single limb is only one of the component parts 

 of the animal body. Again, if Mr. Burton's arch were real, it would 

 have buttresses; for we know by ordinary mechanical principles that 

 an arch cannot exist without lateral pressures, and that a buttress 

 diminishing in breadth from its base upwards is the proper form for 

 resisting those pressures. The fact, then, of the buttresses being 

 dispensed with, proves that this arch is applied to no purpose, or to 

 a wrong purpose. Lastly, if the arch were real, what is the purpose 

 of the Corinthian columns and horizontal entablature ? An arch pro- 

 perly built requires neither. If the weight be supported on a single 

 beam of stone laid on vertical props (as the columns and entablature 

 suggest), then the arch is superfluous. Or if the construction be 

 altogether different — if the space be spanned by numerous wedge- 

 shaped stones, arranged in the form of a vault— then the columns are 

 superfluous. The arch and the entablature cannot both be wanted ; 

 one at least of them is inconstructive : we believe that both are. 



Neither is Apsley House much likely to be injured. In our view, 

 the columns, stuck in front of the walls of the first floor for show, 

 effectually put the building beyond the pale of criticism. We should 

 have thought the same of the adjacent screen of columns, had not the 

 Institute of British Architects pronounced it "elegant." Where is 

 the elegance ? We can see the beauty of the periptery of a Greek 

 temple, for there the columns have meaning and purpose. But surely 

 the row of columns at the entrance of the Hyde Park are Kn-meaning. 

 They sustain no weight but that of the small horizontal course of 

 stones laid athwart them. Judging from their dimensions, you would 

 say that the architect had intended to build a large solid edifice, but 

 had been compelled to relinquish his work when only just commen- 

 ced : or it might be thought that the substructure was begun by oi»e 

 architect ; and that another, who did not know for vi'hat superstructure 

 it was intended, had finished it in the readiest way he could. 



AniptfOra ctepit 

 Institui : currente rota tur urceus exit? 



In the second paragraph of the Report, the Institute speak of the 

 triumphal arch as "a successful work :" in the concluding paragraph 

 it is recommended that it should be enriched with " accessorial and 

 subordinate." decorations, as " it would then no longer be subject to 

 the severe criticism of artists, foreign visitors, and persons of ae- 

 kuowlt'dged taste." When the writer of the Report praises the arch 

 as successful, he contradicts the laws of good architecture and common 

 sense ; but when he suggests means of avoiding the severe and 

 general criticism of it, he does something totally different — he contra- 

 dicts himself. We are told, first, that the arch is successful ; secondly, 

 that it should be decorated in a very different way to what it has 

 ever yet been, in order to be "no longer subject" to universal con- 

 demnation. Clearly then, its success has been of a very diflferent 

 kind to that which the Institute set out by assigning to it. 



These strictures upon the Report of the Institute are dictated by a 

 sincere conviction that the formal opinion of so distinguished a body 

 ought to possess far greater weight and authority than will be assigned 

 to this document. The Institute is comprised of those whose learning 

 and position command general respect, and whose zeal in the cause of 

 architecture, and success in the practise of it, iudisputably entitle 



