1S47.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECrS JOURNAL. 



299 



IV. Leafing Ihe question untouched as to the propriety of making the 

 palace of the legislature a sort of museum aud gallery of art, we may rea- 

 sonably hope that when they come to be iuthe very atmosphere of art, the 

 members of the Two Houses will be in some degree infected by it. How 

 much — that is, how little they now understand or caie for art is tolerably 

 evident from the truly unfortunate nem. con. that sanctioned the adoption 

 of such a design for the new facade of Buckingham Palace as the one 

 " presented" to them by Royal Command. Not a single voice was raised 

 to protest against the architectural iniquity of inflicting upon us such a 

 piece of commonplace and even vulgar design — the subject considered — 

 for the front of a royal palace, at the present day ; and after all the revil- 

 ings, ton, that have been heaped upon the original building, as concocted 

 by George the Fourth and John Nash. To sneer at their taste now would 

 be akin to questioning the sublime taste of Queen Victoria and Edward 

 Blore, and be compromising our loyalty. Nevertheless, I do wish that Bcu 

 D'Israeli's excellent advice were taken, and that an architect were hanged 

 in Urrorem to the rest of the tribe. And if such wholesome example is to 

 be made at all, let it not be on some paltry Pecksniff', the architect, per- 

 haps, of a gio-palace, but on some higher offender — even the architect of a 

 royal palace. 



V. Extolling the elaborate richness of the Palace of Westminster, one 

 critic has very naively expressed his astonishment at Mr. Barry's herculean 

 task in having to design such a prodigious quantity of details, there being 

 hardly a square foot of plain surface in the building, either externally or 

 internally. The manual labour and workmanship are of course pro- 

 digious, but the number of drawings required is comparatively very mode- 

 rate, those for one bay or compartment of the structure serving almost for 

 an entire side of it; inasmuch as a single portion of the kind once designed 

 becomes the pattern for as many others as are to be made similar to it. 

 Or does the sapient critic imagine that an architect makes working draw- 

 ings for every individual column, window, and other part that are repeated 

 again and again without variation? If so, he must be first cousin to the 

 Irishman who went to a tailor to order two suits, and having being mea- 

 sured, stood waiting the renewal of that operation, exclaiming, " I told you 

 that I wanted two suits, and you have taken the measure for one only." 



VI. Some who, if not more talented, are cleverer than Mr. Barry — that 

 is, show greater cleverness in sparing themselves trouble — make very short 

 work indeed of designing details, taking them ready-made, and applying 

 them on every occasion alike. One architect, who shall be nameless — for 

 proper names are sometimes highly improper things — has had for his 

 whole stock of ideas, in the course of a long practice that must have been 

 a profitable though hardly can it be called a successful one, — just a couple 

 of patteras for columns, and the same number for windows, which he has 

 served up again and again, with an abstinence of invention and imagina- 

 tion truly marvellous. Let us hope, however, that the day is approaching 

 when it will be exacted of architects that they shall exhibit bond-fide 

 design in their compositions, and also that their compositions shall be 

 legitimately entitled to such name, by being framed according to artistic 

 principles, instead of being, as is now generally the case, mere crude 

 hap-hazard compilations, in which, though every one of the separate 

 features may be good in itself, being taken from here and there, they do 

 not well assort together, or else are not so suitable as they ought to be to the 

 express occasion. Detail ought to proceed invariably from the architect's 

 own pencil ; or if he be incapable of producing it, and be so far a mere 

 mechanic, by what right, or rather with what specious show of right, does 

 he usurp the style of Artist ? — rendering himself thereby a mere quack. 

 Or if, as seems to be the case, we really do not care for having Artist- 

 architects, let us have the honesty to declare so at once, let us desist from 

 vapouring about the excellence of architecture as a Fine Art, and let us 

 fling ourselves into the arms of those two doxies — Caradernsm with its 

 Tinegar-visaged orthodoxy, and Pecksniffism with its drunken, gin-palace 

 heterodoxy. 



VII. The following, from Donaldson's Maxims, can not be too earnestly 

 recommended to a great many, both in and out of the profession : — " He 

 who expects to be a good archiiect by knowing the history of all the styles, 

 and the phases which it (architecture) has assumed through each period, 

 will find himself much mistaken when he begins to practise. He may be 

 a good historian, and a judicious critic, but not necessarily a good artist." 

 — Certainly not, for, on the contrary, he may be a very bad one — that is, 

 no artist at all. Even with regard lo criticism, too, mere historical know- 

 ledge without aesthetic feeling and intelligence will go but a very small 

 way, and produce nothing better than one of those very small critics who, 

 profound in dates and authorities, are exceedingly shallow indeed when it 



comes to questions of real, unprejudiced criticism ; and, to give them their 

 due, they seem to have the grace to know it, for most studiously do they 

 avoid approaching any question of the kind. We have one learned Pro- 

 fessor who goes about surveying cathedrals very much in the spirit of an 

 appraiser, and with just as much eye for their peculiar artistic beauties. 

 For my part, I never take up an account of a building without most de- 

 voutly wishmg that it had no history at all, and that there was nothing 

 else to be spoken of but the structure itself, which is now generally con- 

 verted into a mere peg to hang a tissue of musty gossip and anecdotes 

 upon. £( til Brute ! 1 apostrophized Jovellanos the other day, on turning 

 over his " Carta Historico-Arlistica sobre el Edificio de la Louja de Mal- 

 lorca," — for it is as dull as if it had been written by Dr. Dryasdust or 



Professor . The Artistiea is certainly quite superfluous— nay, 



worse, positively deceitful, and most maliciously so, exciting as it does the 

 most agreeable expectations only to disappoint them. " Heureux les 

 peuples," says Voltaire, " dout I'liisloire est ennuyeuse ;" and if so, archi- 

 tecture ought to be in a most enviably happy condition indeed, since 

 nothing can be duller than its history as it is usually served up to us. 



VIII. Of detestable heresies in matters of Art, the most detestable of all 

 is that which would persuade us that Art can be taught by rules, and 

 ought to subserve to rules. It is the most detestable because the most 

 grovelling and abject,— the most alien from the very spirit of Art. Rules 

 are for dull-witted pedants and schoolboys ; the artist, if he really be one, 

 has got beyond them, and abandons himself to those inspirations. Inspira- 

 tions! — if I smile, I also groan while I write that word in reference to 

 architecture. Inspirations! where do we find them in our Art? Nor 

 may we hope to find them so long as a merit is made of the most barefaced 

 copyism, and of the most servile regard to Precedent. Now, if Architec- 

 ture really be not a Fine Art, let it be exposed as a mere pretender and 

 impostor, and let us hear no more of it. For my own part, I would much 

 rather pronounce its doom at once, and say with the stern Uomau patriot, 

 " /, lietor, colliga munus." 



IX. While there is a great deal of verbose gabbling and prosing about 

 styles, scarcely anything at all is ever said or written upon the subject of 

 what belongs or ought to be made to belong equally to all styles, it being a 

 sine qua non in Architecture properly so called in contradistinction from 

 Building, — namely, j'Esthetic or Artistic effect. Yet it seems to be the very 

 last thing of all that is either thought of or studied. The effect that comes 

 by chance — because it is, perhaps, just that which the forms employed 

 must of necessity produce under any circumstances — is but of a feeble, 

 ordinary kind, whereas the higher quality of Artistic effect never comes by 

 mere good luck. If it is to be at all, it must be provided by the architect 

 himself; nor can he possibly provide it without understanding it, studying 

 it, and aiming at it. He must study it, too, in regard to composition, 

 adjustment of masses, play of both plan-line and outline, and relief and 

 chiaro-scuro, as well as in regard to subordinate parts and details ; which 

 latter are now generally made all in all, although they are seldom more 

 than borrowed ; and, indeed, such borrowing is now maile a positive 

 merit, and is accepted if not exactly as evidence of talent, as an all- 

 sufficient substitute for it. In Fine Art of whatever kiml, effect is every 

 thing, and all the rest no more than the means of producing it. Would 

 therefore, that architects would begin to attend to it much more than they 

 have hitherto done, and then we should have something very much better 

 than the correct dulness they now so frequently present us with. And if 

 they want a study for effect, they may find one in the north-west corner of 

 the Bank of England, which, if they have any eye or feeling whatever for 

 effect, ought to inspire them. Nevertheless, most strange to say, there is 

 not one who has since caught an idea from that exquisite little architectural 

 gem — Soane's best and truest monument. The Institute ought to have a 

 well-executed model of it, both as a most valuable study, a truly admirable 

 precedent, and as a compliment to their benefactor. Nay, without any 

 particular alfection towards the man, I should rejoice to see a statue of 

 Soane himself placed within that classical loggia, where its effect would 

 be almost enchanting. 



X. All-incredible as it is, it is nevertheless fact— a dismal and a damnin>"- 

 one — that at the late meeting of the Archaeological Association at Nor- 

 wich, not one of the egregious architectural cognoscenti there assembled 

 thought it worth while to pay a visit to Cossey Hall, although it is in the 

 immediate neighbourhood of that city, and is in many respects a chef 

 d'ceuvre specimen of Ancient English Domestic architecture of the palatial 

 class. It is true it is but a modern production, still it is a charming artistic 

 imitation, strongly reminiscent of Thornbury, and other excellent examples 

 of the same period. Very ill indeed does it become archaeologists to turn 



40* 



