tolerably competent to judge whether they are written with any ability. Nay, one of them has actually been referred to not without commendation in a note in the volume of the "Transactions of the Institute of British Architects," and again in a pamphlet by Mr. Hopper; while another has been quoted no less flatteringly in an essay read at the Architectural Society. We may be forgiven for what looks so much like egotism and vanity in alluding to these testimonies in our favour; since, at all events, they justify the very special dislike Mr. Gwilt has taken against us, and which, by the by, is not the very least of the compliments we have received.*

Far be it from us to deprecate such notice as that which the author of the "Elements" has bestowed upon us, or to maintain that we are perfectly irresponsible for our opinions; at the same time it is a duty we owe both to ourselves individually, and to the journal for which we write, to defend them, and, if possible convict our volunteer critic and amateur reviewer of being strangely at fault in nearly all he says. Our only regret is that we must be far more brief than we should be did we consult only our own inclination. Still, though we are compelled to pass over many things in his book which would afford us matter for remark and comment, we trust we shall be able to make out a tolerable case against him, and with fewer blunders† and contradictions than he has fallen into.

*In his recently published volume, entitled "Temples, Ancient and Modern,”which is, by the by, one of the oddest farragos yet produced in this book-making age, -Mr. Bardwell has also paid us the compliment to take, without acknowledgment, a few things from us, wishing, no doubt, to have all the credit of them himself. For instance, from the very paper which is so obnoxious to Mr. Gwilt, he has taken a passage quoted by us from Menzel, whom we suspect he would not greatly relish, had he read his book; however, whether he has read it, or is able to understand the original, most certain it is, that he did not care to try his hand even at a short translation, the one given being verbatim our own. He has also pilfered the last paragraph of our translation from Klenze's preface, working it up into his own text, without hinting that it is borrowed from any one! This may be very ingenious, yet certainly not particularly ingenuous, nor always safe; for, perhaps, many others, besides ourselves, may be able to claim what has been similarly purloined from them.-As an amusing proof, too, how much the doctors in the profession disagree among themselves, we find Mr. Gwilt quoting the very same passage from Menzel, and adding that, although there is nothing new in the doctrine itself, conclusions may be drawn from it very opposite to those adopted by ourselves, and, as it would seem, by Mr. Bardwell likewise, to a certain extent, to say nothing of those at which Menzel himself has arrived.

† At page 15, we meet with this very startling specimen of Mr. Gwilt's acumen as a reader: The reviewer before referred to, says, he has looked at the principles of the ancients, after the same fashion that a mere grammarian reads the Greek poets; the spirit of their works is with him a very secondary consideration,' &c." It would be difficult to hunt up any where a more diverting blunder! Now, if the reader will refer to page 94 of our 27th number, he will undoubtedly find the words, "We have looked at them," (namely, the works of the ancients, not their principles, as Mr. Gwilt reads it,)" after the same fashion that a mere grammarian reads the Greek poets,

The first accusation against us is that-very absurdly, it would seem-we have fancied architects to be somewhat jealous of amateurs: now it certainly does look very much like it when we find, as of late has been the case, so many uncivil, not to say fiercely angry taunts levelled by professional men against those who at least pay compliment to the art itself, by looking upon it as one which deserves to engage the attention of persons of taste, and who cannot be suspected of being attached to it out of any mercenary motives. As individuals, amateurs-or those so styling themselves-may be both ignorant and officious-mere dabblers and pretenders-consequently not at all to be upheld either by ourselves or others; yet that is no reason wherefore they should be decried and run down as a class; especially as that is not the way to encourage men of education and fortune to turn to architecture as an elegant and liberal study, although it is obviously for the interest of the art itself that they should do so, because, unless persons in that sphere of society possess both taste for, and intelligence of, it, their want of both the one and the other must operate to its prejudice and discredit. We have no doubt there are many ignorant pretenders among those who call themselves amateurs; certain we are, that there are some eminently tasteless bunglers among those who call themselves professional; yet, as we would not stigmatize the whole profession on account of these latter, so neither do we see wherefore the other class should be sweepingly censured, because many will be found in it quite undeserving of the name. Happy should we be to discover that we have been mistaken, and that the profession do not bear that ill-will towards amateurs, even if they do not entertain positive jealousy of them, which we now cannot help imagining they do; yet there is, certainly, nothing in Mr. Gwilt's book indicative, we will not say of friendliness, but of courtesy towards them. So far from it, that he professes his con

66

&c. ;" yet any one-except, indeed, one gentleman, must perceive from the context, that the "we" here means not the reviewer himself, but we moderns generally. Besotted, indeed, must we have been to make the egregiously silly confession Mr. Gwilt imputes to us. Again, a few pages further on, he either most ignorantly or most perversely misunderstands us, and is astonished to find us speaking of "accidental forms applicable to the art in the abstract;" and that, too, after quoting the passage itself, which proves that we said no such thing, the words being, theoretical principles, independent of conventional and abstract forms, and applicable to art in the abstract." Surely the "and," if nothing else, points out sufficiently clearly that it is the theoretical principles which are applicable to art in the abstract. Here our ingenious opponent has cut off from himself all possibility of retreat on the plea of hurry and inadvertence, since, besides quoting the original, he has actually printed in italics his own mistake! Yet, no doubt, he hugs himself up in the idea that in these very two instances he has contrived to make us appear guilty of most arrant blockheadisın; and that he has effectually stopped our mouths, which henceforward will be employed only in chewing the cud of bitter shame and mortification.

tempt for them by implication, asserting that, whenever such men as Aldrich and Burlington, who were "practical amateurs," shall appear," they will be hailed by the profession as welcome intruders." As far as his own feelings are concerned, we will not question Mr. Gwilt's sincerity; but we are pretty certain that few of his professional brethren will thank him for the observation, or at all relish designing amateurs who should tread in the footsteps of Burlington, and lend their services gratuitously to their own friends and the public.

Reviewers generally, as well as ourselves in particular, come in with amateurs for a share of Mr. Gwilt's splenetic hostility; it being arrant impertinence in them to set up for "instructors of the public in matters of architecture." Are we to understand by this that architecture ought to be peculiarly privileged, and exempted from criticism, save what may be promulgated ex cathedra by the professors of the art themselves? or that no one should be allowed to write, in quality of critic, on that or any other branch of study, unless known to the world as a person practically conversant with it? Certes, Mr. Gwilt would thin the ranks of criticism prodigiously. It is a wonder he did not propose that henceforth none should exercise the office of critics or reviewers without having previously obtained a diploma of licence and being duly registered-a scheme not more extravagant than that of a certain Mr. Bell, who, a year or two ago, proposed that no one should be suffered to practise as architect without a diploma, and actually published a letter to that effect, addressed to the then Professor of Architecture:-how such credentials were to be any guarantee for taste, or what quantum of taste would satisfy a board of examiners, he forgot to point out; which may have been one reason why so very notable a project fell to the ground.—As to Reviewers, although we ourselves belong to the craft, we scruple not to admit that they have no right to expect the public to pin their faith upon all they say, or give implicit credence to them. Like other authors, they write at their own peril, and are in their turn amenable to a tribunal quite as high as their own, namely, the opinions of those who are able to judge whether their reasonings and decisions be sound or the contrary. For aught, too, Mr. Gwilt can tell to the contrary, some of those who have favoured the public with their comments on architecture may be professional men; and he himself has the credit of having contributed anonymous criticisms to periodicals; one in particular, wherein, out of a determination to vilify the portico of the London University, he actually compared the columus to "a row of skittles or Dutch nine-pins"!

If architects wish to rescue their art from the impertinent cri

ticisms, and futile babblings, as we must suppose them to be, of reviewers; wherefore do not they themselves undertake to inform the public taste by giving, not anonymous vituperations, but sound, discriminate, and impartial observations on the productions of architecture, as well as mere general opinions on points of doctrine, which, unless illustrated and enforced by specific criticism, are apt to be vague and unsatisfactory? Criticism, however, does not appear to be the forte of architects themselves. Perhaps, there is no class of men who, while their studies require them to be tinctured with some degree of literary taste, and while their art would, if pursued con amore, supply them unceasingly with matter for disquisition and inquiry, are so incommunicative, or have, apparently, less to say upon what we must needs suppose interests them. In proof of this, we may remark that, whenever they publish any of their own designs, they very rarely enter into any explanation of them, and least of all as regards those particulars, as to which information is more especially requisite. We do not mean to say, that those belonging to the profession are incapable of writing, or that they never write at all: on the contrary, several of them have lately put forth books and pamphlets as well as Mr. Gwilt; yet, rather as if to perplex the public and each other, for so very conflicting are their tastes, their opinions and their theories, as to convince us that if one be right all the rest must be wrong. And we suspect that the views entertained by that " preterpluperfect Goth," Welby Pugin, or by Hosking, or by Savage, must appear to the author of the "Elements," quite as heretical, as mischievous, and manifesting as much "ignorance of the first principles of the art," as any thing ever uttered by a Reviewer. That Mr. Gwilt, however, does not hold every 66 anonymous author" to be an ignoramus is apparent from his giving a long quotation from one, to whom, he says, he is indebted for some valuable hints. Now we happen to know who that writer is, and we can assure Mr. Gwilt that he is, perhaps, of all persons in the world, the very last of whom he would have chosen to say aught complimentary. Poor Gwilt! There are certainly practical blunderers now-a-days in the world, if the race of "practical amateurs" be extinct.

In the Postscript"* to his Preface, our opponent charges us

* In the same place he taxes us with manifesting want of feeling or bad feeling in our note upon Sir J. Soane, to which he has very maliciously directed attention, saying that, but for that he should not have noticed the article at all. When we say "maliciously," we do not mean as regards ourselves, but Sir John; because with that admirable consistency of which his book affords many striking, not to say ludicrous, instances, instead of attempting to vindicate the late Professor, or showing any dispo. sition to do so, Mr. Gwilt actually says ditto to our animadversions, confessing that he

with having spun out our "very heavy" article on the " Influence of Construction on Style" into a sort of treatise with the titles of some German books at the head of it. It is not for us to decide whether that paper be a more than ordinarily heavy one-we cannot object, in return, that Mr. Gwilt's arguments are particularly weighty-but the reproach that it is not exactly what it professes to be, that it is "a sort of treatise" rather than a review, does not come with the best possible grace from one who entitles his book "Elements of Architectural Criticism," when it consists almost entirely of strictures upon ourselves, eked out with historical abstracts of Grecian and Italian architecture, together with fragmentary and desultory remarks. He sails under false colours, for his title-a very clever bait in itself—is a complete misnomer, there being nothing whatever of a system of criticism in his book, nothing even in form amounting to a connected treatise on its elements: but, we beg pardon, Mr. Gwilt does not relish "treatises." By way of saving appearances at the outset, the first section is upon the Laws of Proportion; which would lead one to expect that the same method would be pursued with regard to other principles. These, however, are the only ones which, while professing, as far as his title goes, to furnish the public with a useful digest of the canons of architectural criticism, the writer has thought necessary to inquire into; consequently we are at liberty to suppose that he considers the whole code of æsthetics as applied to architecture to be comprised in them; notwithstanding that others, as well as ourselves, may be of opinion that a knowledge of those laws alone will go but a very little way towards enabling any one either fully to understand or to relish all the various qualities and merits which enter into the produc

does not admire his buildings, and not only censuring his "unforgiving disposition," but leaving it to be inferred that his moral character was in other respects not the very best, although, as he is now gone" to answer for his deeds done in the flesh," it ought to be exempted from reproach. We raked together, he says, all the bad points in Sir John's character: now, in drawing a character, it is usual, we fancy, to rake or bring together all the prominent points and traits in it; and was it our fault if, as was the case with King John's, those of our Knight John's were bad ones? Could it have been urged against us that we had falsified or overcharged them, it would have been a different matter: yet Mr. Gwilt does not even pretend to say we did so. He virtually admits that the portraiture is substantially correct, although he is willing to take credit for being shocked by it. So far from at all exaggerating, we actually suppressed much, and not a few instances, that would have directly confirmed what we said. But enough:-if any one can contradict what we have asserted, let him stand forward and do so; or if it can be shown that the principle laid down by us is incorrect and immoral, let it be fairly declared to be such.

As for Mr. Gwilt, his tenderness for the dead does not extend to the living; since, not content with railing at-we cannot say criticising-the National Gallery, he actually adds a most sneering note against the present Professor of Architecture; and that, too, after having a page or two before excused himself from adverting to the works of his contemporaries. This is both delicacy and consistency with a vengeance!