1809.] 
conceived to be, and therefore repre- 
sented as having been, sent to us for se- 
rious isertion, was not written “-by Mr. 
Elmes, but by the gentleman who gave 
us this information; and he further re- 
quested, that we would state this to the 
public. We certainly should not have 
thought our inseruon of this Critique, or 
our observations upon it, required any 
such explanation; but as our sentiments 
are rather strengthened than altered, and 
as they seem to have been confirmed by 
the approbation of the public, we have 
complied with this gentleman’s request, 
and do, therefore state, that such an in- 
timation has been conveyed to us.” 
What is the meaning of this, I really 
do not know; and after the illiberal be- 
haviour he has proved himself capable 
of, I shall not concern myself any more 
with him, as an individual. What does 
he mean by ‘¢ Our sentiments are rather 
strengthened. than altered?’ Dues he 
_ mean of my being the author, or his sen- 
timents of disapprobation? If he means 
the former, I will close the dispute by 
asserting, in the most positive manner, 
that it did not come from me, or from any 
influence of mine, and that I never saw 
it, or knew of it, till in print: and that 
by his not denying the accusation, [ have 
a right to infer that it originated in 
one of the modes of which [ have ac- 
cused him, and which he admits by si- 
lence. 
If, on the contrary, he means his sen- 
timents of disapprobation are confirmed, 
and that in his opinion the drawing was 
not fit to appear before the public, I 
shall répeat, that I do not value his ar- 
chitectural knowledge sufficiently to bow 
before him; that the committee of Royal 
Academicians, who honoured me with 
their approval of its fitness to appear 
before the public, by suffering it (as well 
as every other design I ever sent) to be 
exhibited, stand far higher in my esti- 
mation as artists of invention, and judges 
of inventive genius, than Mr. Landseer, 
whom as an engraver, and conse- 
quently a copier and multiplier of other 
men’s designs, I refuse to acknowledge 
as a juror in the court of taste, especially 
in the cause of architecture; at the same 
time recommending to his attention the 
observation of Pliny, as being even more 
Strongly applicable to architecture, 
(which is both a fine art and a science, ) 
' than even to painting, sculpture, or fic- 
. 
tion, (in which latter article he is certainly 
a wholesale dealer): ‘ De pictore, sculp- 
-Montaty Mae. No. 190, 
Insinuations of a Reviewer of the Fine Arts. 
253 
tore, fictore, nisi artifer judicare non 
potest. . 
I shall make a few observations on his 
criticism, and briefly take my leave, apo- 
logizing, to you, and to your readers, for 
occupying so much space on such a tri- 
fling subject; but if I had passed it over 
in silence, 1 should have acquiesced in 
the charge against myself. He says, “ it 
is neither an elevation, nor a perspective 
view, bat a’confused and incoherent jum- 
ble of both.” This, I am sure, is an in-_ 
coherent jumble of language, and com- 
pletely exposes the ignorance of its aus 
thor, im the art he pretends to criticize. 
What are the visible parts of the 
houses on each side of the street in the 
drawing, but elevations? They are so, or 
nothing; they certainly are not geome- 
trical elevations, and this has been the 
stumbliny-block of the critic. He has 
heard something of elevation, which 
technically always’ imphes a geome- 
trical elevation; and because my per- 
spective view is not a zeometrical eie- 
vation, forsooth it is not an elevation af 
all. What again is the arch in the dis- 
tance? An elevation, but notageometri- 
cal one; but being placed parallel with the 
picture, is, according to his account, that 
portion of elevation (geometrical is un 
derstood) that makes the jumble with the 
perspective. 
Every line in the drawing, parallel, 
and inclined, is in perspective, and not 
described. geometrically, therefore can- 
not be ajumble ef both. Had I, in com- 
pliance with his observations, made a 
geometrical elevation in perspective! 
I might (perhaps). have pleased him. 
What a happy consummation would it 
have been to my labours! But seriously, 
Sir, I should never have complained of 
his critiques, in this * hberal and impar- 
tial review of painting, sculpture, and 
the fine arts,” or in any other work, had 
it been free from faise insinuations, and 
divested of personal illiberality. For the 
truly judicious, whor-alone I am ambi- 
ticus of pleasing, would have judged 
candidly between me and my critic, and 
the faulty alone would have suffered in 
his estimation, False praise, or unde 
served reproach, could please, or move, 
none but a weak and imbecile mind—. 
Falsus honor juvat, et mendax infamii terret, 
Quem, nisi mendosum et mendacem ? 
; Hon: 
Your's, &c. > James Eres. 
19, College-Hill, Queen-street, 
Cheapside, July 2, 1809, ~ ‘ 
eG TA ins. OP 
