or in perverse taste, is too remote from our times to strike us as a degrading revolution in the art, and is consequently permitted to enjoy a sort of authority. Thus the enthusiastic admirer of classical architecture, who would be scandalized at any liberties taken with the models expressly derived from antiquity, tolerates, patiently enough, the strange metamorphose it has undergone from its so-called revivers and the Italian school generally; and, in like manner, the devotee of the Gothic style is more inclined to admit the pretensions of the Elizabethan mode, and that of the times of James the First, as derivatives, although in fact tasteless depravations of the other, than allow any departure from precedent in what would be infinitely more faithful to the spirit of the original style. Such, in fact, is the authority conceded to everything or anything, no matter how extravagant, which has already established itself as belonging to a particular period, that even such a mere capricious fashion as that which has obtained the appellation of à la Louis Quatorze,-at once most whimsical and borné,-is admitted as something standard at least, even by those who would be shocked at meeting with a tenth part of the same caprice and conceit displayed according to a mode to which we are less accustomed. This is doubtless to be ascribed, in a great measure, to that indolence which causes people to be dissatisfied with whatever calls upon them for any exertion of their critical faculties before they can with safety decide upon matters of taste; and therefore leads them to prefer what has some time or other been admired to that whose title to admiration still remains to be made out. At least it is difficult to account in any other way for that anomalous severity of taste, which, while it is so exceedingly latitudinarian in regard to all that has been done at some time or other, is so intolerant of all further innovation. Hence, too, it happens that, notwithstanding the numerous varieties and sub-varieties of style we are now become acquainted with, the resources of the architect are very little if at all increased in proportion; because, instead of being left at liberty to have recourse to them as sources from which he may draw elementary forms, to be worked up by him into fresh combinations, he is expected to adhere, as strictly as possible, to some one style in particular, retaining all its characteristic deformities or incongruities, no less than its positive merits. Were it not for this unhappy prejudice and its cramping influence, many ideas now suffered to remain in their native uncouthness, when they were probably no more than rude and imperfect essays in the transition from one mode to another, might be taken up and worked out into some degree of beauty. But such process, unexceptionable as it may appear to be in itself, would by no

means be calculated to satisfy those who hold exactness of imitation to be almost the very first condition of correctness in architectural style, no matter what else be violated, or how little suitable the precedent itself may be for the purpose to which it is thus applied, or under any different circumstances.

Of the two leading sects into which our architectural imitators—that is, nearly the whole of the architectural public, professional and non-professional-are divided, each is equally dogmatical in asserting its own views, apparently regarding them as quite incontrovertible, yet neither cares to rebut or even to notice the objections brought forward by the opposite party; which certainly is not for want of opportunity for doing so, since such questions are suffered to remain from time to time unanswered, although quite as well deserving attention as many which are made subject of serious dispute. Those, for instance, who, opposed to Grecian architecture and the styles derived from it, maintain that of our ancestors to possess indefeasible claims upon us as congenial to our soil and climate, and as bearing that stamp of nationality which imparts so much interest to the buildings of any country, carefully abstain from adverting to the wide difference there is between adhering to a long-established system, and attempting to revive it after it has fallen into desuetude, and been altogether superseded by one which, if nominally more foreign to us, is certainly quite as popular, and accommodates itself more economically to all our present exigencies. Had the link never been broken, then indeed it would be no more than prudent to consider how far it would be advisable to abandon one national mode of building for another, even though that other should be recommended by superior intrinsic beauty; but such is very far from being the case, so much so that we should now find it an exceedingly difficult task to apply the architecture of our ancestors to general purposes at the present day, although for certain subjects it recommends itself as decidedly preferable to any other. Undoubtedly, it sounds plausible enough to say that we are neither Greeks nor Romans, but Englishmen, and that consequently our old English style, of which we have varieties enough to furnish us with either express types, or else hints, for every possible occasion, ought to serve us as a standard model. Such argument, however, is not perfectly free from fallacy; it is incumbent, therefore, upon those who hold it, to be prepared to show not only that we are still Englishmen, but remain precisely such Englishmen as were those of the periods when that national style was in vogue. Unless this can be satisfactorily shown, and also that the two or three last centuries have produced no perceptible changes in our habits as a people, and in the transactions

of life, such argument becomes little more than a rhetorical flourish, addressed rather to our patriotism than our judgment. We have adopted so much that is exotic, not in the shape of refinements alone, but of the daily necessaries of life, that now to reject any mode of architecture, because the offspring of other ages, of a widely different soil and inhabitants, would be preposterous; especially as it is quite as easy for us, taking that we are accustomed to, as we now have it, to efface its foreign mark, and stamp it afresh, as to divest the other of its venerable rust, and obtain for it fresh currency.

In thus calling attention to what the advocates for Gothic architecture carefully keep out of sight, let us not be thought disposed to take a hostile part either against them or their favourite style, to which we are quite as much attached as they can possibly be, although not blind to the many and serious obstacles that lie in the way of its being again brought into general use; nor insensible to the merits of other styles which they would willingly proscribe, or which they at least affirm to be comparatively quite unworthy of public favour. We might in fact here prove our impartiality, by bringing forward circumstances that are equally overlooked by those who claim the pre-eminence for Grecian architecture, not only on the score of its pure æsthetic beauty, but for the facility with which it accommodates itself to every modern purpose. We would rather, however, hint to both parties, that it would be more profitable were they, instead of pronouncing panegyrics on their own favourite style, and affecting to treat the rival one with unseemly contempt, to inquire within what limits it may safely be proposed for imitation, and what changes are rendered expedient both in consequence of the greatly altered purposes for which it is required, and of the difference of material and mode of construction now employed.

That, in many otherwise praiseworthy modern buildings, not only the apparent forms are more or less at variance with construction, but superfluous parts are brought in with no other view than that of securing marked features peculiar to the style aimed at, will hardly be denied by any one who is at all capable of distinguishing between what is essential and what is merely supplementary in an edifice. Nay, it by no means always happens, that any pains are taken to bestow a plausible appearance of utility on what is in reality so superfluous as to announce itself as such almost at once, although by a little management some kind of motive might be made to excuse it. Besides these radical defects, arising from adopting styles arbitrarily chosen, independent of any ascertainable object in doing so, and sometimes even more to the prejudice than advantage of utility; it

VOL. XIX.-NO. XXXVII,

F

rarely happens that the detail, however correct it may be considered merely as so many pieces of pattern, copied from authentic examples, is intelligently composed, or consistently kept up, so as to have the air of not being compiled and put together almost at random, but of emanating from and being dictated by the leading ideas of the work-those which have determined the architect to shape it out in the way he has done preferably to any other. Still more rare is it to meet with a building in any one assumed style, where, without direct imitation, the particular idiom of that style is successfully adhered to and maintained, not in those minutiae alone which may be transferred by the process of mere copying, but in the general conception, arrangement, and expression. This peculiar quality of style it is which shows the architect to be master of it, not working formally after precedents whose spirit, perhaps, he after all very imperfectly comprehends, but moulding to his immediate purpose that particular style of design of which he happens to have made choice, in such manner as to convince us that he has a perfect command over it; enters into all its peculiarities, and is even capable of imparting to it fresh power. It was thus, by consulting and complying with circumstances, not by slavishly conforming to previous modes of building, that those styles were gradually brought to maturity, which we now receive as models, and which we, for the most part, vainly strive to emulate, while pursuing a directly opposite course; whereby, even if much of their effect is retained, propriety and significancy are generally lost sight of.

With an earnestness amounting almost to bitterness, does Dr. Ritgen animadvert on what he contends to be a most injurious prejudice in favour of borrowed architectural modes and forms, both abstractedly beautiful, and beautiful in their original application, but which are rendered incongruous, affected, and unmeaning, when allowed to falsify what ought to be the natural physiognomy of a building,-making it appear other than it really is, or at least than it would show itself, if no such artifices were resorted to, and if the architect made the real constructive members and forms contribute to effect and decoration; whereas the character obtained by the usual process is little better than an imposition kept up with more or less dexterity. An excessive and mistaken reverence for antiquity led the revivers of Roman architecture-Greek being utterly out of the question to content themselves with borrowing its external features, without attempting to penetrate beyond them into the constitution of the style itself, or to investigate its principles. Their vanity was, in all. probability, sufficiently flattered by their being able, by dint of examining and comparing Roman structures, to produce the

semblance of a style recommended to them, on the one hand, by the imposing authority of classical times, and on the other, by its novelty, in comparison with that which they were endeavouring to explode. This was, perhaps, all the more excusable an error, because, during the preceding ages, the architecture of Italy had not, like that of other countries, refined itself into a distinct and independent system, but continued to retain strong reminiscences of its Roman origin, in columns and ornaments taken immediately from more ancient structures, and adapted with more or less skill to other situations and purposes than those for which they were at first intended. Hence, in restoring to columns their entablatures, and all the component members of the orders, it is no wonder that the Italian artists of the risorgimento period gave themselves credit for having purified architecture from the corruptions which it had undergone, and rescued it from the caprices of a degenerate taste; but it certainly is to be regretted that, through an undue scrupulousness, and an overweening regard for ancient examples, just as they happened to meet with them, they should have considered the Roman orders rather as patterns implicitly to be followed, than models, of which discretionary use might be made; while, at the very same time, they unreservedly allowed themselves so much latitude in every other respect, that the degree of resemblance which is attained chiefly serves to render the general disparity between the type professed to be imitated and the imitation all the more glaring; and to make manifest, either that they very imperfectly understood the nature of the style they professed to adopt, or else that the style itself did not contain such resources within itself as would have enabled it to meet circumstances not originally contemplated for it.

Certain it is that the respect, whether sincere or pretended, entertained for the ancient orders* and the few other ornamental members to be met with in Greek or Roman edifices, has operated mischievously, both in securing admiration for buildings destitute in themselves of claims to notice as productions of art, beyond what they derive from adscititious parts, and in cramping the architect by conditions not to be fulfilled without violating the primary law of architectural composition; viz., that the forms and details shall arise out of the plan and construction, at least not be in contradiction to them.

"One of the chief causes,' says Ritgen, why our modern architecture is so utterly deficient in actual creative and plastic power, and is

*The article Civil Architecture, in the Penny Cyclopædia, affords a very lucid synopsis of this subject, and many no less ingenious than novel remarks, among which the writer's hypothesis as to the origin of the base of the Ionic column.