328 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[Nov. 



hare been ; and the Scott structure, which, soolh to say, is but a very so- 

 soish specimen of Gothic. Probably some of the more recent buildings 

 may show a little advance in architectural taste, but hitherto it has been 

 at a very low ebb indeed, a good deal of the Edinburgh architecture being 

 truly Pecksniftian, although it has the advantaj-e of being all of genuine 

 8toue; yet it would, perljaps, be more correct to call that a disadvantage, since 

 the durability of the material serves to perpetuate and record the poverty 

 of design exhibited in the buildings themselves, and their utter want of 

 jesthetic value. Though the picturesque of lillh and wretchedness may 

 be found in many of the " wynds" and lanes in the older part of the city, 

 the modern architecture of th« Northern Athens is almost the reverse of 

 pictorial, — chillingly cold, tame, and insipid ; which accounts tor the pic- 

 turesque just mentioned btiiig selected by draftsmen and illustrators in 

 preference. The stone edifices of Edinburgh reconcile us to the " lath and 

 plaster" ones of London ; — as to the matter of the " lath" it happens to be 

 invariably of brickwork, therefore far more substantial than it has the 

 credit of being; and as to " plaster columns," there is no occasion to rail 

 at what exists only in imagination, unless it has been found that either cast- 

 iron or brickwork becomes transformed as to mere plaster, as soon as it is 

 plastereil over. — To skip back to Edinburgh, its buildings sound much 

 better than they hole, which accounts for the architects themselves not ever 

 publishing designs of them, notwithstanding the admiration they seem 

 to excite, if we may judge by the vapouring made about them. Drawings 

 are in one respect the best test of architectural design, because design is 

 then judged of by its intrinsic merit and the taste displayed in it, apart 

 from adventitious circumstances, and those of material ; the excellence of 

 which last, or the contrary, is not to be imputed to the architect himself. 

 In drawings, while stone buildings show no belter than if they were of 

 meaner material, the merit of tasteful design in " lath and plaster," may be 

 enjoyed without any drawback, and we have the satisfaction of knowing 

 that if the structures themselves are of perishable quality, their beauty is 

 rescued from deslroclion and preserved by the graver, as is the ease with 

 many antiquities, and also many far distant buildings which we are ac- 

 quainted with only by means of the representations of them. 



III. The Institute is no Society for the DiflTusion of Knowledge either 

 nsefnl or useless. M'hat knowledge it gets it keeps to itself; and truly, 

 knowleilge is so valuable a commodity that it ought not to be squandt-red 

 away in lavish largesses to the public. The Institute is perfectly free 

 from the mania of proselyte-making ; it has no notion of encouraging archi- 

 tectural "education for the people," but leaves the people, or people who 

 would fain unders:and something of architecture, to instruct themselves as 

 well as they can, or else — which is perhaps better still — to remain in igno- 

 rance. Nor, indeed, is it by any means certain that a more general dlliu- 

 dion of taste for the art would at all increase ihe amount of admiration now 

 bestowed on some of iis productions and their authors, or the amount of 

 satisfaction derived fr(.m them to the public. Great truth is there in the 

 maxim of nmne ignclum pTu niiignifico, as there is also in the remark that 

 *' familiarity is apt to beget contempt ;" and there most assuredly would be 

 danger of its being di^covered how very little mind, or talent of any sort 

 there is in many things that have been cried up as wonders. Thanks to their 

 convenient ignorance, there are a good many honest people who have no 

 suspicion whatever that ihe "fine" and " grand" columns they behold, 

 and whose "haid names" are to them a mystery, are only copied from 

 patterns got out of books. It would be cruel to undeceive them, — to dis- 

 sipate the dreamy wonder that now fascinates them ; and cruel not only to 

 them, but also towards those whose works now pass with the ignoraut for 

 marvels of art. If the public is to be liberal with its admiration, it must 

 Dot be clnirv'itjnnt. On no account should it be sutTered to know enough to 

 be able to criticize fairly and justly ; so that it can but find words for 

 praise, that is sufficient, and if they are somewhat ill-applied, they are not, 

 on tiiat account, likely lobe the less laudatory, or less magnificent insound- 

 It is, however, exceedingly difhcult to hit the exact mark, and to keep the 

 public at that convenient point of the thermometer of taste, where igno- 

 rance of art is so free from indiflerence towards it, as to be accompanied 

 by a praiseworthy relish for it. \\ bile it is proper, it would seem, that 

 persons in general should not be at all instructed in architecture, it is de- 

 sirable that they should take great interest in it, and be disposed to en- 

 courage it very liberally. Architects are apt to complain of the obtuseness 

 and obstinacy of employers — of the stupid whims and caprices which have 

 caused many a fair idea to be marred, but they do not perceive that the only 

 real remedy is to be sought in the belter instruction of that class of the 

 community to which architecis look for their employers. — But I am inter- 

 rupted^ 



IV. — .V packet has this very instant been put into my hands ; I open it, 

 and find a book, I open that too, and turning over its leaves immediately 

 alight upon the following very free remarks upon the Institute: — 



" Their policy, I say, is bad, utterly bad ; but I do not say blameable : 

 it is mislalien. They have, I doubt not, as sincere and houest a desire for 

 the advancement of the art as 1 could possibly claim ; but their policy is a 

 false one, and in manner as well as in matter. The doctrine of the Insti- 

 tute is false ; the constitution of the Institute is false likewise. .'\nd when 

 I point out (according to my judgment) the errors in general faith, I would 

 point oul also (as equally iinporlanl), the errors in government of our na- 

 tional s( hool of the art. The Koyal Institute of liritish Architects has not 

 a free liberal constitution. It is beneath the level of other institutions of 

 the connlry. And this ought not to be. Mistaken doctrine is bad, mis- 

 taken policy is perhaps worse. The narrownesses, coldnesses, roughnesses, 

 of much of our social system are expa'. ding, warming, softening, in these 

 days. Year by year the thoughts of men are widening. And the broader 

 basis, the kindlier liberality, the freer liberty, have never failed to be pro- 

 ductive of good ! 



" The curse of the Institute is the constitution of its Council, — an irre- 

 sponsible and despotic secret government, which, in the circumstances, it 

 would be preposterous to expect to rule otlierwise than wiih narrowness, 

 jealousy, and pique, wanting in ingenuousness, weak in disinterestedness. 

 There are cases in which a committee of the noblest and best could not 

 possibly be otherwise than a clique. The Institute is no represenl.tive of 

 the Architects of Great ISriiain at all. And it is but natural : to become 

 so (as it ought to be) it must change ; — and first ils government ; its doc- 

 trine will come secondly in due course. Its gross exdusiveness generally 

 is a grand error. — It is loo professional, another grand error." — i)r. Verd. 

 "Tell us then, Iriend, what thou wouldst have it to be." — Mr. Newl. "^ 

 broiid ImseU.frce, disinttresfed school of architecture ; — open to all who love 

 the art, — old .iiid voiiiig, professional and non-profe>sional alike; — a free 

 theatre of liberul discnurse, — a society of artists and arthvers in architec- 

 ture, for the ends of architecture purely ; sly ballot- boxes iini\ secret councils 

 utterly overthrown, as tyrannical, illiberal, and bad. That is wliat 1 would 

 have, and what the public of England, dini architects especially, are en- 

 titled to demand. — Let the Institute change its character, and repudiate all 

 close-fisted and selfish policy, — all pro/etsioiialism, — and hoist ihe banner 

 of art, free to all, and to all equally." — The At'ic/tn/t' Discourses. 



V. A capital fellow that Newleafe ! and a capital book I — one likely to 

 do a great deal of good, by clearly explaining the character of architecture 

 as a fine art, as which it is now scarcely recognised at all, except merely 

 nominally and by courtesy ; nor have architects themselves much clearer 

 notions of it than those who are not architects. Not only is its doctrine 

 excellent, and perfectly free from all conventionality, and cant, but the 

 book iiself is so clever and entertaining, so full of original thinking— of 

 shrewd remark and caustic pleasantry, as when once opened to be found 

 irresistibly fascinating. Even those who dislike the writer's opinions, and 

 more especially their being uttered to the world, accompanied with so 

 many home-truths — and they will not be a few — will be forced to read oa 

 in spite of themselves. Speaking as he has done of the lusiitiite, it argueg 

 considerable boldness in the writer to put his real name on the tille-page; 

 one which till now has never been before the public, but which is likely to 

 be henceforth more and more distinguished, since it is not to be supposed 

 that one who has made his dibut with so much ipirit, will now lay down 

 his pen. Some parts of the book are quite dramatic, and the characlerg 

 of Mr. Scaniozzi-Brnnelleschi Brick, Ur. Bluebottle Crape, the antiquary, 

 Mr. Coeur-de-Lion iMivlfe (sic) the ecclesiologist, and littleSmug the travel- 

 led architect, are admirably hit otF characters, with merely the slightest 

 soupcon of caricature. What the Vitruvianisis, the arcb;eologists, the 

 Camdenists, and the Ecdesiologisls will say of the " Newleafe Discourses," 

 is more doubtful than what they will think. Probably they will, as the 

 wiser course, say little or nothing, but that they will think Newleafe a for- 

 midable opponent is an assured certainty ; — and all the more formidable be- 

 cause he will have the public on bis side, and bis example may stir up 

 others to continue the assault upon those inveterate — not, it is to be hoped, 

 invincible-prejudices which beset architecture on every side. One com- 

 mendable trait of spirit in the writer is that he shows himself perfectly 

 free from Jluukijism ; he is not awed by the authority of names, pays no 

 servile deference to professional rank, but censures erroneous opinions in 

 " a Professor," with just as little ceremony as he would in any other indi- 

 vidual. Both Professor Cockerell and Professor Willis get a few rub» 

 from him ; and if they deserve them, why should they not? At any rale 

 they are game worth aiming at, whereas some others are hardly worlk 

 powder and shot. 



