To cite merely the Ionic of the Temple on the Ilissus, of the Erechtheion, and the interior order of the Temple of Apollo at Bassæ, what widely marked differences do we discern in them! Each possesses its own distinct character; for the difference is not confined, as in Italian varieties, to what is no more than an alteration of some one part, but it diffuses itself over the whole composition. It may, indeed, very fairly be questioned, if, previously to the discovery of the last-mentioned example, any one would have been able to devise aught resembling what is so unlike any other form of the voluted capital,-to go no further than that single member.

Leaving Mr. Gwilt, therefore, out of the question, scarcely any one else will think us very wrong in claiming for Grecian architecture the diversity we did, when we said that each of its leading classes or orders might be divided into subordinate ones: for, in addition to the masculine Ionic of the Ilissus,-as for distinction's sake, it may very well be called, and the florid Ionic of the Erechtheion, we have this very peculiar Bassæ specimen, with its fourfaced capital, and shaft sweeping down below to its widely extended base; in which last-mentioned member alone it differs from every other example yet discovered, the diameter of its undermost moulding being double that of the lower part of the shaft measured just above the sweep or apophyge ;-yet, perhaps, the author of the " Elements" will say that this constitutes no difference in the proportions. And here we may remark that, should we learn nothing else from this very singular example-which, by the by, would itself admit of many further modifications-it might at least serve to convince us that it is not quite so impossible, as some have represented, to obtain, if not an entirely new and distinct order, something markedly original and sui generis.* Neither can we be certain but that many other combinations as yet untried and unsuspected by us, may yet lie undetected, or else are irrecoverably lost, and may therefore be reinvented by ourselves, although of their having been

*So long as we continue to discountenance, and even reprobate as idle, or worse than idle, every attempt of the kind, arguing that what has never yet been done can never be done at all, and that none ought to try to succeed where those who hitherto have tried have failed, it is not indeed very likely that architects should devote much study merely to encounter prejudices. Yet, that the matter is not absolutely hopeless, is proved by the singularly novel and beautiful capitals designed by Schinkel for the columns in the sculpture rooms of the Berlin Museum; and that we may not appear reluctant, as Mr. Gwilt reproaches us with being, to admit the merits of our own Countrymen, we may instance, among many other exceedingly happy and original ideas by Maddox, a most elegant and truly classical one applied to a Grecian Doric, consisting of a deep zone or band with small full-length female figures sculptured upon it, immediately below the capital to which it served as a continuation. We do not know whether it has ever been executed, but had its designer palmed it on the world a's some fresh discovery or fragment of antiquity, it would probably have ere this been copied over and over again.

previously adopted we can have no assurance. As an Ionic composition, very distinct from any of the varieties above-mentioned, we may call attention to that which is conjectured to have belonged to the Temple of Eucleia, on the Ilissus.

While the Greeks, following the example afforded by nature herself, whose productions exhibit many modes of beauty belonging to the same class and so far allied together, yet specifically distinct from each other, appear to have aimed at individual character without departing from the general one belonging to the respective orders; the Italians have, as far as the orders are concerned, endeavoured to establish certain patterns, applied invariably or very nearly so on every occasion-a practice conducing to mechanical tameness and monotony on the one hand, and to capricious licentiousness on the other-as the only means of counteracting the sameness and insipidity of those features which are arbitrarily condemned to remain unchanged. Were the patterns thus rigorously established, by a kind of Procrustean law, of such superior beauty in themselves as to render any deviation from them a hazardous experiment, there would be some reasonable pretence for conforming to them undeviatingly; instead of which, they are, compared with the Greek originals whose names they bear, decidedly poor if not absolutely tasteless. This is more especially the case with the Italian Ionic, which can hardly fail to strike the most uneducated eye as meagre, harsh, and the very reverse of graceful throughout, in comparison with the voluted order of the Greeks, whose least praiseworthy specimens totally eclipse the other. Whichever of its two varieties we take, that with the volutes arranged diagonally, or the one with two faces, the Italian capital is decidedly bad, the whole crude and poor; the volutes themselves seemingly little more than undeveloped hints for, or imperfect reminiscences of, the perfected forms, without grace in their contours, and admitting of no change of expression-of greater richness or sobriety accordingly as the number of the spirals are increased or diminished. A corresponding kind of superiority, more or less in degree, manifests itself throughout all the Greek forms and details, and is radically inherent in them, since it arises out of the organization of the style itself, which is eminently favourable to the natural development of the primary elements of beauty. Therefore, as such forms are independent of those particular arrangements of plan and general outline followed by the Greeks themselves, we most earnestly recommend that they should be adopted as our models, and our taste be formed upon them, although it is hardly possible, nor indeed is it advisable, that we should adhere to ancient precedent in every other respect.

VOL. XIX, NO. XXXVIII,

D D

To such compromise, however, Mr. Gwilt will not listen: he objects to Grecian detail, unless a structure can be likewise Grecian in every other respect; and as he limits the epithet to that style where "the contours of the mouldings employed are confined to portions of conic sections," he must of course mean to exclude such contours, together with the taste emanating from them, and urge our return to the comparatively coarse contours and profiles of the Italian system, which certainly cannot boast of being equally susceptible of variety. Here, as well as in numerous other instances, he appears somewhat inconsistent and contradictory; for, speaking of Elizabethan architecture, as it is called, he asks what object is gained by its adoption? " does it afford an opportunity of disposing a plan more commodiously, than Grecian, or Roman, or Italian architecture?" Thus tuln seem that even Grecian architecture is not quite so unaccommodating and unmanageable as he is all the while striving to make us believe. And we, in turn, may ask what particular advantage is gained by following Italian in preference to Grecian authorities, in matters which are entirely those of taste? In fact, by moulding the Grecian style to our present purposes, adhering to it as closely as we can without pedantical, overstrained strictness, or sacrifice of convenience, and supplying whatever it is obviously deficient in for our actual use, we should be doing no more than the revivalists of the orders did with respect to Roman architecture; with this difference, however, that we should go to far purer sources of taste, and be furnished with a more abundant stock of materials; inasmuch as we should be at liberty to avail ourselves of Roman antiquity, likewise, for all that is really worthy of imitation in it and no more; since we should not be under the necessity of drawing indiscriminately from that quarter. We should, moreover, be in some degree assisted by Italian architecture itself, because, besides supplying hints which might easily be improved upon, it would teach us what we ought to avoid, and hold up to us by way of warning the abuses and solecisms in which that school so abounds.

Were it possible for us here to enter into such comparative examination of the Greek and Italian styles, as far as any kind of parallelism exists between them, as would sufficiently elucidate our views, and the course we recommend, most gladly would we do so; but it would occupy us very long to do it satisfactorily. We must therefore content ourselves with barely suggesting the idea itself, and with asking, by way of shaping out something like a direct application of it, whether Palladio's Villa Capra-which must be sufficiently familiar to most of our readers-would not have been infinitely superior to what it now is, had the order been Grecian and the other parts in conformity with it, although the

composition is not according to any Grecian precedent? To contend that it would thereby have ceased to be Italian without becoming essentially Greek, would be only idle bickering about mere words: the question is not whether what was so produced would answer either name, or neither; but whether it would have been good in itself. How this question would be answered by Mr. Gwilt we cannot for a moment doubt, he being, notwithstanding his professed feeling for Greek architecture, an extravagantly devoted admirer of Palladio and his school; consequently there is some reason to suspect that when he is complimentary towards the former, it is chiefly for "manners' sake;" otherwise, we should conceive that a relish for it must put him quite out of conceit with the works of the Vicentine architect.*

Nevertheless, numerous and glaring as are the solecisms and inconsistencies with which the buildings of Palladio and the Italians generally abound, a person might entertain a predilection for them without compromising more than his taste, were such predilection, like that of the Italians themselves, exclusive. But when we find a man professing to venerate Grecian architecture, quite bigoted in favour of a style the very reverse in its feeling,find him most pedantically strait-laced and hypercritical in regard to the former, wherein he insists upon the strictest adherence to every arrangement observed by the ancients themselves; yet tolerating under another name, not merely the use but the abuse of columns and orders intended by those who employ them to pass for classical;-when we meet with such contradictions, we say, we may very reasonably question, whether the person who advances them has really any fixed principles of taste, or possesses any sound elements of criticism. How orthodox the present champion of the Italian school is likely to be considered by it may easily be guessed, when he goes so far as to declare "that, compared with the extraordinary structures of the pointed style scattered over Europe, the most celebrated works of the Greeks sink into nothingness. Unity and harmony, symmetry and beauty of proportion, are not less discernible in the edifices of the middle ages than in the most celebrated temples of the Greeks." We need

* As Mr. Gwilt has thought fit to give an historical summary of Italian architecture, it is to be regretted that he should have broken off where the usual sources of information stop short, without condescending to bestow any notice on the late Marchese Cagnola or any of his immediate predecessors or contemporaries. Neither would it have been amiss, had he, while speaking of French architecture,-which, be it observed he rates very highly-had he, instead of confining himself to things that have been repeatedly spoken of before, favoured us with his opinions and remarks on some of its recent productions. Yet, perhaps, although he is of opinion that France alone can compete with our own country at the present day, he does not particularly admire La Madeleine and some other structures, aping the antique to a degree which he must consider quite objectionable,

DD 2

not tell our readers that in such opinion we cordially agree, but we must say, it is so directly opposed to the tenets of Italian writers and critics, as to tend to bring their doctrine into discredit, if not upset it altogether. For they have unsparingly reprobated every species of Gothic architecture, stigmatising it as a mere random chaotic fashion, the offspring of barbarism and ignorance; devoid of proportions, meaning, propriety, symmetry, elegance of form, or any good qualities beyond the effect resulting from size and multiplicity of work.

In spite, however, of the very liberal admission he makes in behalf of the Gothic style, he asks almost immediately afterwards: "What object is gained by the adoption of Gothic or Elizabethan architecture, as it is called?" Probably his meaning is, “ the adoption of Gothic or of Elizabethan ;" otherwise, as here expressed, we must suppose the two terms to be used as nearly synonymous, instead of indicating two such very distinct modes of building, that if we admit the latter to be only one remove from the former, it links Gothic and Italian completely together, the Elizabethan style partaking quite as much of the one as of the other; consequently, it would not be at all more improper to say Italian or Elizabethan, than Gothic or Elizabethan. It will be contended that, considered with reference to Italian architecture, Elizabethan is merely a corruption or awkward imitation of it, wherein its columns and entablatures are parodied. True, it bears precisely that sort of resemblance to the forms and details borrowed from Italian sources, as those of the Italian itself do to those of Greece; so that we, in our turn, may be allowed to ask: "What object is gained by the adoption of Italian or Elizabethan, when, for what regards taste, we may have recourse to the models furnished us by Greece itself?"-yet requiring models to be intelligently studied, instead of being, as hitherto, merely copiedtransferred without any change, modification, or variation, to buildings necessarily dissimilar in many respects to those whence they are borrowed.

Now, however, when it might fairly be expected that we should begin to advance beyond the narrow, cramping, injurious system of professed copying, and turn all that we have been collecting to account, by applying the elements it furnishes us with to other modes than the particular one whence they are derived,--we are assured that we are "gradually returning to that school which, from the time of Inigo Jones to Lord Burlington, gave to the English rank among the nations of Europe." This is indeed startling, and should it turn out to be correct in point of fact, would prove how useless have been all those labours and researches in the field of Grecian architecture and antiquity, by which