aS"? 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



[October, 



^REMARKS ON THE LETTER BY "AN ADMIRER OF 

 ' ARCHITECTURE." 



SiR_Notwithstanding that you yourself have already replied to 

 "An Admirer of Architecture," in the pertinent and forcible editorial 

 note attached to his letter, I could wish, as the writer of one of the 

 articles he has commented upon, to be allowed to say something fur- 

 ther, since he appears to have greatly misconceived one or two points. 

 Misconceive he certainly does, when he supposes that the remarks on 

 the "Thveadneedle Street structure" were penned chiefly for the 

 purpose of crying up that building, and decrying almost every other 

 production of architecture in the metropolis at all similar in style, or 

 sufficiently so to admit of any comparison. I certainly did bring forward 

 many instances of buildings— some of them tolerably recent ones— ■ 

 and however unfair or illiberal my estimate of them may be, "Ad- 

 mirer" seems to acquiesce in it, for he has not attempted to gainsay 

 it, by pointing out merits in them, or any one of them, to which I had 

 wilfully shut my eyes. That he objects to my having expressly 

 named several buildings which I hold to be exceedingly tasteless and 

 mediocre, I can hardly for a moment suppose; or if he does so he is 

 most strangely inconsistent, because he himself says it is fairer to 

 allude to particular parties, or to their respective works, than to deal 

 in vague and sweeping denouncements which criminate all alike, 

 without distinction. If, therefore, I erred at all, it was not in naming 

 any, but in not naming every one of the buildings to which I could 

 easily have adverted, as striking examples of false taste and the 

 "pseudo-classical" system. 



I am wrong, however, in saying that I could have done so " easily " 

 for it would have been a tedious task to point out, one by one, all the in-r 

 stances of the kind that might be enumerated. Still, from those which 

 I did specify, it will not be very difficult to guess what others I should 

 include among them : nor is there much danger of any one's fancying 

 that I should 6.rclude from my list the British Fire Office in the Strand, 

 or the church in Wyndham Place, both of them the productions of 

 men who rank high in their profession — men who, it is to be pre- 

 sumed, are not of " uncultured minds," for they have traveUed, and, it 

 may be presumed, have studied also, and applied themselves to their 

 art" with more than ordinary diligence. Advantages they certainly 

 have had that do not fall to the lot of every one in the profession, for 

 they have had opportunities both ample and frequent put in their way, 

 —one of them especially ; yet how far they have turned them to 

 account, or what particular'talent or taste they have manifested, may 

 be judged from the above-mentioned specimens of it: not from them 

 alone, but their works generally. 



Vndtr-ratt their buildings, and many others which enjoy no small 

 degree of credit with the public, I most certainly do, because I rate 

 them at a very much lower value than they have hitherto passed at, 

 and of course, as I myself conceive, at a much juster one, and more 

 corresponding to their actual worth as productions of architecture. 

 Sooner or later, things which have been greatly over-rated sink to their 

 proper level ; although the first attempt to correct public opinion in 

 regard to them may appear invidious, if not malevolent, especially in 

 those cases where an imposing reputation has been acquired, that 

 carries with it a degree of authority which persons in general are 

 unable to dispute, and which those who are able do not care to oppose. 

 In matters of literature and art, and not least of all in architecture, 

 the influence of names is exceedingly great, to a degree that is not 

 only magical, but positively injurious, for it causes that which requires 

 to be assayed to be set up' as a standard of excellence — an authority 

 to which all ought to bow down. A reputation may stand very high 

 upon the whole, and not undeservedly so, and yet be no pledge what- 

 ever for excellence in many productions that may be sheltered by it, 

 as being productions of the same mind. Such I conceive to be the 

 case with regard to Sir Christopher Wren: as the author of St. Paul's, 

 he is fully entitled to all the honour that has been heaped upon his 

 name, but all his other works are so immeasurably inferior— some of 

 them, indeed, so utterly unworthy of being considered productions of 

 intellect or art— that it is with difficulty we can persuade ourselves 

 that they were concei)tions of the same mind. The fact, indeed, of 

 their being by him admits not of doubt or dispute; but internal evi- 

 dence uttbrded by the things themselves is wanting altogether. 

 Nevertheless, because such is the fact, and for no other reason, our 

 admiration is claimed for everything that passes under his name, 

 ■without reference to intrinsic merit, or without the least suspicion that 

 what is by the author of one of the noblest monuments of English 

 architecture can be other than truly excellent in itself. Thus is a 

 name converted into a positive standard of merit ; criticism is merged 

 in mere prejudice or else hypocrisy ; admiration is aftected where it 

 is not felt ; the expression of opinion is reprobated as flying in the 



face of unquestionable authority; and uninquiring deference to and 

 superstitious veneration of great names are inculcated, which operate 

 in reality injuriously to the real interests of art, and impede its ad- 

 vancement. We bow down to names, and make them our idols. It 

 is expected that those of Vitruvius, Michael Angelo, and Palladio, 

 should be worshipped by us : to doubt, to call in question, or even to 

 inquire into the real merits of those who have been so pinnacled aloft, 

 is regarded as a species of actual profaneness ;— which may, after all, 

 be very right and jirudent, for some reputations of the kind are by no 

 means' of a description that will bear being handled and closely 

 inspected ; and most unpleasant must it be to their admirers to have 

 unsightly flaws and defects pointed out in their idols, and tohear 

 objectio'ns started which they know not how to refute or ward oft'. 



'But I am now wandering very wide astray, and must therefore 

 skip back at once to "Admirer" and his remarks. Among them is 

 one from which it might be inferred that I had deprecated, or at- 

 tempted to dissuade from, the study of Stuart's " Athens," and other 

 works of that class. Now what I complain of is precisely the reverse ; 

 that they are learnt by rote, and copied without being studied scarcely 

 at all ; for were they studied, their spirit would be caught, and in- 

 fused into modern works, which would nevertheless be marked by 

 original feeling, some novelty of treatment, and some freshness of 

 ideas. Instead of this being done, the works alluded to are made use 

 of as little more than mere books of patterns; and wherever they are 

 deviated from at all, it is more frequently than not entirely for the 

 worse, it being done not with any attempt to advance a step farther 

 than the originals, but rather to retrograde a step or two back. Thus 

 while we have Grecian-Doric porticos professedly after that of the 

 Parthenon, or the Theseion, the resemblance extends to no more than 

 the columns themselves ; for although they may be copied with fac- 

 simile accuracy, as if fidelity in that respect was in itself all-sufficient, 

 so very greatly are the original buildings departed from in almost 

 every other circumstance, that almost all in them that amounts to 

 design, or contributes to eftect, is entirely obliterated. Inner columns 

 and depth of pronaos behind them are omitted, and metopes and pedi- 

 ments are left blank, as if those were altogether matters of perfect 

 indifference and no moment, although to vary ever so little from exact- 

 ness in the minutest details in the columns and mouldings of the en- 

 tablature would be deemed a great license. Now were Grecian 

 architecture really studied in a liberal and artist-like spirit, such 

 would not be the case. Its orders and other features would be looked 

 to as standard types of the style, as models upon which our taste in 

 that style is to be formed; not— as is now the case— as stereotype 

 copies' which admit of no modification nor any diversity of expression, 

 be they applied ever so differently from what they are in the structures 

 from which they are derived. Of course the junior student must begin by 

 copying from " Stuart, in order to familiarize himself with those 

 models perfectly, and as preparatory to farther study of their 

 character. But the misfortune is that very few indeed ever think 

 of getting beyond that first step ; with copying they begin, and 

 with copying thev end. But the ancient orders, we are told, 

 will not ' bear being trifled or tampered with. Yet, surely, to 

 make use of them with artist-like intelligence and freedom, and to 

 treat them with congenial taste, is quite a different thing from tam- 

 pering with them ; and that it is more than every one is able to do, may 

 be taken for granted, because it is not every architect who is an artist ; 

 but to maintain that it is more than any one is able to do, would almost 

 be equivalent to saying that no architect is an artist, or can be trusted 

 for a moment if he attempts to innovate in matters where others are 

 content implicitly to follow those who have preceded them. So much 

 for the difference between studying Stuart, and merely tearing a leaf 

 out of his book, as may serve immediate occasion. 



But, it is said, " Mr. Barry has his book of reference, too" ; no doubt, 

 otherwise he would hardly have made himself so familiar with the genius 



and capabilities of the style in which he has shown mastery ; but then 

 he has evidently turned it to a very diff"erent account than those do 

 their " Stuart," who do little more than merely take from it the exte- 

 rior or fayade of a portico, to stick up where it shows itself to be 

 merely borrowed, and perhaps most tastelessly misapphed. Many 

 details and some entire features in some of Mr. Barry's most suc- 

 cessful Italian, designs may certainly be traced to previous examples 

 that have been delineated; yet that hardly amounts to copying, for they 

 are frequently so very greatly improved upon, and recombined with 

 so much taste as to acquire a heightened charm. Of many the merit 

 hardly shows itself in the original compositions, where there is ge- 

 nerally together with much to please, almost always something to 

 off'end more or less, whereas our English architect's productions are 

 stamped by a refined elegance difi'used over the whole, and kept up 

 throughout. But if, as would seem intended to be insinuated, any one 

 else might, by pursuing the same method, accomplish with .equal 



