66 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



[March, 



feet of diminishing the other columns by comparison, the Uller being on 

 nnite as large a scale as we are accustomed to. By exceeding tl.at scale 

 and rising up higher than ihe Ionic colonnades, the central port.co would 

 confer dignity on the whole faya.le. That such combination of two d.t- 

 /erent orders is not in strict accordance with Grecian precedent, .s what 

 we need not be told; vet it seems to us that, instead of requiring excuse, 

 such deviation from the letter of Greek architectural law, would rather 

 tend to excuse those violations of it which there will now be, by pro- 

 claiming at once that the building does not alVect to be severely Grec.an. 



The I'lan ace .mpanying the Elevation, shows the Connth.an octas yle 

 to be bron-ht forward two intercolumns in adva-.ce of ihe adjoining colon- 

 nades ; owing to which it would be rendered unusually spacious, and 

 would constitute a rather striking piece of architecture interndly ; while 

 another advantage would be that the portic would display itself more pro- 

 minently in an oblique view of the facade. In the external elevation of our 

 Corinthian Portico, there is nothing either amounting to design, the sketch 

 merely indicating the order and showing that the frieze of the entablature, 

 and the pediment would be enriched with sculpture. But perhaps some 

 little degree of novelty may be claimed for the mode in which the portico 

 is connected with the lateral colonnades, which latt.rare entered through 

 open doorways or portals, answering to the extreme intercolumns of the 

 oetastyle. Thus treated the portico would be better enclosed than if open 

 at its ends, into the colonnades, and a greater variety of eliect upon the 

 whole would be produced. One other thing that may deserve to be 

 pointed out as partaking of novelty, is the position of the two statuesaga.nst 

 each of the extreme columns of the oetastyle, iu which situation such 

 figures would, we conceive, tell very forcibly, and throw a good deal of 

 plav into the architecture. 



We are aware that such a portico as we have imagined could not be 

 applied to the building in its present state: it would be necessary to 

 carry up th. back wall of the portico higher, and also to raise the cen re of 

 the roof to the pitch of the loftier pediment. What then ? there would be 

 nothing of very awful or unheard of extravagance in doing that ; far better 

 that, than to erect what may sometime hence be doomed to be ta^ea down 

 a-rain to make room for something more digniBed. If Sir John Soane 

 built the exterior of his Law Courts twice over ;-if the wings that were 

 first put to Buckingham Palace were no sooner up than they were taken 

 down again, the mere consideration of a little more expense and a little 

 „,„re delay, ought not to deter from elTecting even at the eleventh hour an 

 alteration greatly for the better in the fa?adeofthe British Museum. That 

 we ourselves consider it would be one greatly for the better is evident ; 

 and most persons we fancy, will be of the same opinion ; stil others may 

 think very dilferently, in which case they are heartly welcome to be 

 as free in their strictures upon us as we have been .n speaking of the 

 design which is now being carried int) execution. 



DECEPTIVE ARCHITECTUR.\L MATERIALS. 

 II. 



We published last month a long letter subscribed "The Writer in the 

 Companion to the Almanac," controverting certain criticisms which have 

 appeared in former numbers of this .lournal. It is not worth while to pro- 

 Ion- an uninteresting and unprofitable controversy by replying categori- 

 cairy to the letter; at the same time, there are views suggested by it on 

 one subject-that of deceptive materials-which are certainly worth ex- 

 amining It is a matter of very general interest to architects and those 

 w-ho employ them, that the general question as to the propriety of using 

 deceptive materials, and also the specific questions as to what particular 

 materials are to be considered deceptive, should be clearly and debnit.vely 



answered. „. • . n 



But a mere unsupported dictum will not be a sufticient answer. On 

 subjects like these the reader claims the right of reasoning and examining 

 for himself and will not be satisfied with simple statements of opinion, 

 however autlioritatively pronounced. It will be necessary therefore to 

 observe some sort of method in considering the question, and as we have 

 already assigned in the former paper with the same title as the present 

 one, the abstract reasons for condemning architectural de. eptions, we now 

 purpose to examine the specific applications of the general rule. 



It may then be first remarked that every rule of art which is of the na- 

 ture of a restriction must be applied more strictly to works of the highest 



order than to those of a trivial or unpretending character. So that, ia 

 condemning architectural deceptions, the condemnation must be con- 

 sidered to fall far more heavily when it aliecls important public edifices, 

 churches, collegiate buildings, iic, than when it refers to ordinary domes- 

 tic architecture. There would, for instance, be no dispute as to the impro- 

 priety of making the great doors of a cathedral of some common wood 

 painted in imitation of oak, but it would be mere affectation to object to 

 the use of " grained" deal in an ordinary dwelling room. Neither, we 

 presume, would there be found at the present day many defenders for an 

 architect who constructed an elaborate roof like that of Henry the Seventh's 

 Chapel, of some cement or stucco resembling stone ; but it would be ab- 

 surd to conclude that there was any impropriety in using plaster ceilings 

 in priva'e bouses. Neither, again, would it be possible to deny that a 

 chimney piece of wood painted and varnislied to resemble marble would 

 appear contemptible iu a noble banquetting hall ; but it is quite possible 

 to conceive instances where wood painted like marble might be introduced 

 without any grievous ofi'ence to good taste. 



The more immediate occasion of the present paper arises from the re- 

 marks which have been made in defence of the use of varnislml deal, and 

 as this material has of late been very frequently used in buildings of the 

 highest pretensions, it becomes a matter of great interest to the architect 

 to ascertain under what circumstances its use is justifiable. It is clear 

 that no reason exists for making it an exception to the remarks just made 

 respecting the ca-;e3 where imitative materials may be allowed, and those 

 remarks are of the more importance with respect to varnished deal, because 

 there are methods of using this substance by which it altogether avoids 

 the risk of being ranked among deceptive materials. In many of the old 

 mansions and seats of the nobility the wood-work is of the Norway pine 

 timber, varnished ; and this wood from its superior hardness and closeness 

 of texture compared with common deal, admits of considerable delicacy 

 and minuteness in carving. The grain of the wood also is free from that 

 coarseness which renders deal generally inapplicable for ornamental pur- 

 poses. The colour of the Norway pine wood when varnished somewhat 

 resembles that of pear wood, and produces a very agreeable elfect ; the 

 varnish also improves the appearance of the wood by developing its texture 

 and " bringing up" the graiu, which often exliibits considerable delicacy. 



This point however is particularly to be noticed— that where the Norway 

 pine wood has been used with good effect, there has never been any attempt 

 to yroduce deception by artificially disguising the natural colour of the 

 wood. This remark is most important, because, otherwise, all attempts 

 to improve the natural appearance of architectural materials might be con- 

 sidererl synonymous with architectural deception. It is very necessary for 

 the consistency of our argument, that this distinction should be clearly 

 made ; for otherwise it might lead to most absurd inferences. An un- 

 thinking person might, for instance, condemn the polishing of marble on 

 the mere ground that marble when polished presents an appearance alto- 

 gether different to that which it has in its natural state. But the essential 

 distinction between the improvement of natural materials and architectural 

 deceptions is— that by the latter, a poor and cheap material is made to 

 look like some other well known material, which is more rare and costly. 

 Marble, by being polished, cannot be said to be made to resemble anything 

 more costly than itself; neither can varnished Norway pine ulun unstained 

 be supposed to be a spurious and deceptive substitute for a more ex- 

 pensive wood. 



If, however, some cheap common wood, such as the ordinary pine be . 

 stained of a dark colour, altogether dillerent from its natural hue, and if 

 moreover, as iu the case of the timber roofs at Lincoln's Inn, the stained 

 wood is placed at such a height that the eye cannot detect the poverty of 

 the material by its shapeless knots and coarse graiu, it seems impossible 

 for any one but a mere disputer about words to deny that in such a case 

 varnished deal must fairly be reckoned iu the list of deceptive materials. 



It does not appear any answer to our objection to say that ia this case 

 the wood is not painted. Of what consequence can it be whether the de- 

 ception be produced by painting the wood or by staining it.' The object 

 of the discuasou is to ascertain the/)c( of the existence of deception— not 

 the mode of producing the deception. So long as it remains undisputed 

 that a common material is made to look like another, better and more ex- 

 pensive than itself, it really seems wholly immaterial to dispute about the 

 specific means by which the deceptive resemblance is effected. The notice 

 of ceiling at Lincoln's luu, copied into our pages from tlie Atheiucum, 

 stated that the wood was first stained and then varnished, and that the 

 colour of the wood was entirely changed ; these facts are perfectly suffi- 

 cient for our argument. 



