74 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[March, 



in for the twncc, unusual forms and arrangements are not at all likely 

 to present themselves ; — yet a single idea of the kiml once adopted 

 readily suggests a second and a third ; for the combinations thus to 

 be produced are so illimitable, that the chief perplexity is to decide 

 which of them deserve the preference. 



Occasionally, indeed, one meets with plans intended to display 

 novelty and ingenuitv, but then so far from being calculated to pre- 

 possess in favour of their forms and arrangements, they are seldom 

 better than mere architectural cnpriccm, compounded of extravagant 

 and absuid whims,— merely oddities, in which but little regard is paid 

 either to effect or convenience, consequently they chiefly serve to bring 

 ever)- thing of the kind into discredit, and to confirm the prejudice in 

 favour of conimon-|)Iace routine. Novelty alone will not suffice: there 

 must also be something that will preserve its freshness and will con- 

 tinue to charm when the interest occasioned by novelty shall have 

 worn awav. 



We are aware there are some who affect to despise any thing like 

 contrivance or scenic effect in architecture, as beneath the dignity of 

 th« art— as partaking of stage trickery— as liable to be paltry. They 

 insist upon simplicity, and nothing but simplicity, as if picturesqueness 

 and complexity were never to be admitted, but banished altogether as 

 faults. " Intricate forms, in works of architecture," Professor Hosking 

 tells us, "whether internally or externally, will be found unpleasing:" 

 and undoubtedly he is right, if he means no more than to censure that 

 degree of intricacy which becomes confusion— a perplexed architec- 

 tural jumble that wearies the eye by presenting no one distinct picture, 

 instead of presenting a series of them— all varied, yet all agreeable in 

 themselves and skilfully combined. Most certainly it is not easy to 

 draw a precise line between what is an allowable species of intricacy, 

 and what becomes a faulty excess of it. Yet if no positive rules can 

 be laid down in regard to that quality in architecture, neither can it 

 be done in regard to simplicity, which is apt to be carried so far that 

 it becomes nothing better than poverty, baldness, monotony and in- 

 sipidity. This is a misfortune which must be patiently submitted to; 

 though, for our own part, we question its being one at all ; since there 

 would be small merit in going right, if it were impossible to go astray ; 

 nor would, we apprehend, the dignity of art be consulted by reducing 

 art to such a system of exact rules for every possible occasion and 

 contingency, that it might be learnt by rote. Of mechanical rote and 

 routine there is by far too much in architecture already. It is true 

 routine must be learnt and gone through : yet that is no reason where- 

 fore we should confiuo ourselves to it without endeavouring to get a 

 step beyond it. Rules are excellent leading-strings for beginners, yet 

 little better than shackles to the more advanced artist. 

 (To he continutd.) 



CAKDIDUS'S NOTE-BOOK. 

 FASCICULUS XXIV. 



" I must have liberty 

 Withal, as large a charter as the « ;nus, 

 To blow on wliom I please." 



I. The terms in which they are sometimes spoken of, might lead 

 those who had never seen them, to imagine that our London Squares 

 possessed a high degree of positive architectural beauty, or at least 

 were strikingly picturesque ; neither of which is by any means the 

 case. To a])p',y, as has been done before now, the epithet " magiiiti- 

 cent" to them, might almost pass for malicious, sneering irony, did 

 we not know that if not bestowed, out of serious conviction, it is at 

 least intended to be understood in earnest ; — and such prodigality of 

 praise, most certainly tosts the dealers in "flummeiy" description 

 nothing, it being just as easy to virrite the word " magnificent" as any 

 other. The sober truth is, our Squares are very agreeable places of 

 residence, and the houses in them are generally of a superior kind to 

 others in their neighbourhood ; they are more pleasantly situated, en- 

 joy more light and air, and also a comparative degree of quietness. 

 But as to architectural effect of any kind, that must not be looked for, 

 there being no more in the elevations which form such ^^Zaces than in 



would have had so many picluresiine circumstances in its plan as at present, 

 had its architect been employed to erect an entirely new structure, instead 

 of altering and enlarging the old one. Wo doulit if, m that case, «e should 

 have had such unusual forms and combinations — such piquant Episodes of 

 Pla>i,ss the Library fonned out of Queen Elizabeth's Callery. the Waterloo 

 Chamber, and the breakfast Room at the angle of the two brancties of the 

 Grand Corridor. 



the sides of the streets of private houses, which lead into them. Here 

 and there, it is true, there may be a front wdiich possesses greater pre- 

 tensions than its neighbours ; but the same may occur in any other 

 range of houses. Our Squares have an air of opulence and comfort, 

 that is not to be mistaken; but they are quite in architectural undress, 

 certainly not in gala costume, — in superfine broad-cloth, if you will, 

 yet as plain and homely in cut, as if it were drugget. Now we do not 

 say that this is wrong, — on the contrary, we hold such unpretending 

 plaiimess to be more respectable than tawdry vulgar finerj- : all we 

 wish is to call things bv the right names, and not to talk of " magnifi- 

 cence" where it exists" no more than in the garb of a Quaker. Let us 

 leave to such persons as George Robins the humbugging practice of 

 digni/ijhig ordinary things by superfine words, unless we choose to be 

 at the trouble of inventing other commendatory epithets to supersede 

 the present hackneyed ones ; for at present, those of " magnificent," 

 "grand," "elegant," &c., are so bandied about on every paltry occa- 

 sion that they nave lost all force and meaning, and are in no better 

 repute than the term "respectable." In honest truth, if we look at 

 them with an architectural eye, the character of our Squares is only 

 insipidity. They present neither the charm of piquant variety and 

 contrast, nor that of unity of design. They are nothing more than four 

 ranges of buildings surrounding an open space with a garden in its 

 centre ; consequently the totalily of the design — supposing there to be 

 any design at all — is lost, because the correspondence existing between 

 those separate elevations is hardly distinguishable to the eye. Bel- 

 grave Square forms no exception, for even there, owing to the size of 

 tlie area or plact itself, the houses — which, by the by, are far from 

 being in the most dignified style, or very best taste — appear low by 

 comparison with it. The elevations produce no collective effect : — 

 the four make no greater architectural impression than a single one of 

 them w ould do in the same situation ; w hile, on the other hand, if 

 each is considered by itself as a single separate fa9ade, it is very un- 

 satisfactory, because there also we find proportion disregarded, and 

 all grandeur nullified by the multiplicity of small parts. 



II. Except what is called the Circus in Piccadilly, and in Oxford- 

 street ; and what is called the Polygon in Somer's Town, we have no 

 instances oi places that are rotund or polygonal in their plans, — none 

 that are either hexagonal or octagonal, notwithstanding that those forms 

 are well adapted for such purpose in themselves, and would create 

 some variety in our street scenery. Upon a large scale the elliptic 

 shape would be found applicable, and in such case the street might 

 run through it in the direction of its transverse axis. An oval ///ace 

 of the exact dimensions of the Flavian Amphitheatre or Colosseum, 

 viz. one whose axes should be 015 and 510 feet respectively, with a 

 garden in the centre, of the size of the arena, would convey a better 

 idea of the vastness of that monument, than Lincoln's Iim Fields do of 

 the Great Pyramid. But to produce its full effect, no such place, be 

 it an ellipse, circus, crescent, or polygon of any kind, should have its 

 circumference broken by being pierced w ith streets running into it ; 

 for it ought to be entered through arches or gateways, over which the 

 elevation should be continued. The Circus in Oxford-street, is no 

 circus at all, but presents merely four segmental slices of one, separated 

 from each other by exceedingly wide streets. 



III. It may very fairly be suspected that the new Professor of Archi- 

 tecture at the Royal Academy is not at all likely to gaiu much credit 

 by the remarks he threw out the other evening, in disparagement of 

 Gothic Architecture. Most assuredly they did not betoken those en- 

 larged and comprehensive views of ait which ought to qualify one 

 who fills so important and influential a post, and wnosc opinions will 

 of course be received with implicit deference by many, and without 

 further questioning or examination. On the contrary they were hardly 

 worthy of a village pedagogue, much less of a Professor of the art. 

 To adopt them, would be to retrograde instead of advancing, — to re- 

 turn to the now exploded prejudices against the Gothic style, which 

 led such writers as Evelyn to condemn it as " a monkish and gloomy" 

 mode of building, wherein no sort of harmony or correctness of propor- 

 tions is observed ! If the Professor be right, all we have been doing 

 for the last forty or fifty years in regard to the study of Gothic archi- 

 tecture, has been worse than useless — positively naught and mis» , 

 chievous, seeing that the sooner we now unlearn it and retrace our 

 steps, the better. It is a pity the Professor was not placed in cathdra 

 a few years sooner, for in that ease, we shoidd probably have been 

 spared the mortification of seeing the style denounced by him adopted ; 

 for the new Houses of Parliament. It is further to be regretted that J 

 he did not think proper to explain himself by pointing out in detail i 

 the defects of the Gothic style per st, and what it is that renders it J 

 wholly inapplicable — at least unworthy of being applied, at the pre- 

 sent day. By not doing so, he has afforded ill-natured people, the , 

 opportunity of saying that it was not in his power to support his opi- , 

 nion by aught of argument ; consequently, that though it comes from a 



