Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
file which includes the original illustrations.
See 41781-h.htm or 41781-h.zip:
(https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/41781/pg41781-images.html)
or
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/41781/41781-h.zip)
Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive/American Libraries. See
http://archive.org/details/countryhousewith00chat
Transcriber's note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
[oe] represents the oe ligature.
Friendly Contributions for 1842.
THE COUNTRY HOUSE,
(WITH DESIGNS,)
Edited by
LADY MARY FOX.
London:
J. Murray, Albemarle Street.
MDCCCXLIII.
C. Whittingham, Tooks Court,
Chancery Lane.
[Heading illustration]
PREFACE.
Hitherto the Contributions have appeared in a small volume: but a
friend having furnished me with the Manuscripts of the following
Letters, in order to do justice to the beautiful designs, it has been
necessary to increase the size of the work. I trust that the merit of
the drawings will reconcile my subscribers to the increased price.
The observation on the style fittest for domestic architecture, the
description of the proposed house and the designs, are by Monsieur De
Chateauneuf; to these, Mr. Eastlake kindly added a very valuable Letter
on the Principles of Interior Decoration.
Monsieur De Chateauneuf is already known in this country by his elegant
work, ARCHITECTURA DOMESTICA, and his design for the new Royal
Exchange; all who have visited Hamburg must be well acquainted with the
refined taste which characterizes the buildings erected under his
superintendance.
It is but justice to M. De Chateauneuf to state that his letters were
written merely as matter of amusement, and arose out of a discussion
with a friend, as to which was the best style to be adopted for
domestic architecture; the letters have been translated from the
German, and unfortunately have not had the advantage of being submitted
to the writer for correction.
It is proposed that the next volume should contain a reprint of the
late Mr. Whately's admirable work on Modern Gardening; this it is hoped
will be considered as a fit companion to the "COUNTRY HOUSE." I take
this opportunity of thanking Mr. C. Knight and Mr. Jackson, who kindly
furnished me with the blocks from which the vignettes have been
printed.
MARY FOX.
[Decorative illustration]
[Heading illustration]
ROYAL SCHOOLS OF INDUSTRY,
AT KENSINGTON, THE POTTERIES, AND SHEPHERDS' BUSH.
Patron:
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF SUSSEX.
Patronesses:
LADY ELIZABETH WHITBREAD,
LADY AUGUSTA GORDON,
LADY MARY FOX,
LADY (V) HOLLAND.
HONOURABLE MISS FOX,
LADY CALCOTT,
MRS. VALPY.
IT is now ten years since the first of these Schools was established,
and instruction is now afforded to nearly _one hundred and fifty_
children of the poorer class, who, but for this aid, would linger on in
idleness and ignorance.
The teaching is not merely confined to reading and writing; the main
object of the Schools is to inculcate habits of industry, and to teach
the principles and practice of the Christian Religion.
On the formation of the Schools, the plan of self-support was adopted,
each child contributing a weekly payment--Infants, 1_d._; Girls who are
taught to work, and the younger Boys, pay 2_d._; and the elder Boys,
who are taught to write, 3_d._ Although these payments go some way
towards the maintenance of the Establishment, yet the funds hitherto
have been found very inadequate, and the deficiency has been supplied
by voluntary contributions, the produce of bazaars, ladies' work, &c.
One of the most successful sources of profit has been a small Volume,
printed under the title of "Friendly Contributions;" the profits from
the sale of this Work have been applied to the support of the Schools:
three Volumes have already appeared, and the present forms the fourth.
It is conceived that it is unnecessary now to urge one word in favour
of the absolute necessity of affording education to all; the question
is narrowed to the consideration of what are the most efficient means
by which this great object is to be accomplished; it is hoped that,
notwithstanding the many excellent charities which claim the attention
of the benevolent, few will be found unwilling to aid an Institution
which, in addition to teaching to read and write, instils habits of
industry and inculcates the principles of Christianity amongst the
children of one of the poorest and most populous districts around
London.
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS.
THE QUEEN (five copies).
H. R. H. PRINCE ALBERT.
THE QUEEN ADELAIDE (ten copies).
THE DUCHESS OF KENT.
H. R. H. THE DUKE OF SUSSEX.
H. R. H. THE DUCHESS OF GLOUCESTER (five copies).
THE DUCHESS OF INVERNESS.
THE DUCHESS OF SUTHERLAND.
EARL AMHERST.
LORD ASHBROOK.
JOHN ALLEN, ESQ.
SIR H. BUNBURY.
LADY BUNBURY.
MRS. BASSET.
MRS. BLAKE.
MRS. BETHUNE.
THE ARCHDEACON BERENS.
HENRY BERENS, ESQ.
RICHARD BERENS, ESQ.
JACOB HANS BUSH, ESQ.
ROBERT BICKNELL, ESQ.
CHARLES DACRES BEVAN, ESQ.
ROBERT BEVAN, ESQ.
EDWARD BLORE, ESQ.
MISS HARRIET CLARKE.
THE COUNTESS OF CARNARVON.
LORD COLBORNE.
HON. R. CLIVE.
DR. CHAMBERS (two copies).
LADY MARY COLE.
I. G. TIMURAN.
MESSRS. COUTTS AND CO. (five copies).
MRS. BEAUMONT COLES.
RICHARD D. CRAIG, ESQ.
JOHN BONHAM CARTER, ESQ.
C. ROBERT COCKERELL, ESQ. R. A.
B. BOND CABBELL, ESQ.
THE HON. ANNABELLA CREWE.
DAVID DUNDAS, ESQ.
F. D. DANVERS, ESQ.
CHARLES PALMER DIMOND, ESQ.
SAMUEL DUCKWORTH, ESQ.
LEWIS DUVAL, ESQ.
MRS. LEWIS DILLWYN.
MRS. DIMSDALE.
MRS. GENERAL DORRIEN.
WILLIAM EASTLAKE, ESQ.
CHARLES LOCK EASTLAKE, ESQ. R. A.
GEORGE EASTLAKE, ESQ.
GEORGE EASTLAKE, ESQ. JUNIOR.
WILLIAM ETTY, ESQ. R. A.
HON. MISS FOX (two copies).
COLONEL FOX (three copies).
B. FRERE, ESQ.
MRS. B. FRERE.
J. B. FREELAND, ESQ.
LADY E. GOWER.
MRS. R. HANBURY GURNEY.
MISS GURNEY.
SIR J. L. GOLDSMID, BART.
G. B. GREENOUGH, ESQ.
J. R. GOWAN, ESQ.
J. R. GARDINER, ESQ.
HENRY GAWLER, ESQ.
MISS GORDON.
MISS GULSTON.
MISS STEPNEY GULSTON.
LADY (V) HOLLAND.
MRS. HOLLAND.
LORD HATHERTON.
MRS. HUSKISSON.
LIEUT.-GENERAL HUSKISSON.
RICHARD HARRISON, ESQ.
MRS. CHARLES HALL.
MRS. HOUSEMAN.
MRS. JOHN HOUSEMAN.
THE COUNTESS OF KERRY (two copies).
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER.
MRS. GEORGE JENNER.
DAVID JARDINE, ESQ.
SIR JAMES KEMPT.
MRS. H. BELLENDEN KER.
THE MARQUISS OF LANSDOWNE.
THE MARCHIONESS OF LANSDOWNE.
LADY ELIZABETH LEVISON.
SIR THOMAS BARRETT LENNARD, BART.
THOMAS BARRETT LENNARD, ESQ.
SIR DENIS LE MARCHANT, BART.
JOHN GEORGE LEFEVRE, ESQ.
EDMUND LUDLOW, ESQ.
HENRY LOWE, ESQ.
JOHN MALCOLM LUDLOW, ESQ.
JAMES LONSDALE, ESQ.
DOWAGER COUNTESS MONSON.
LADY MACDONALD.
LADY MAYO.
CAPTAIN MEYNELL.
MRS. MITCHELL.
THE HON. MRS. OFFLEY.
OLD WINDSOR BOOK CLUB.
LADY JANE PEEL.
LADY PELLEW.
LADY PECHELL.
MISS PRICE.
MR. PANIZZI.
F. PIGOU, ESQ.
J. DELAFIELD PHELPS, ESQ.
LOUIS HAYES PETIT, ESQ.
REV. J. LEWIS PETIT (two copies).
FRANCIS BARLOW ROBINSON, ESQ.
SAMUEL ROGERS, ESQ.
MISS ROGERS.
JOHN RICHARDS, ESQ.
SIR JAMES SOUTH.
LADY SOUTH.
RIGHT HON. V. SMITH.
MRS. V. SMITH.
CHARLES STOKES, ESQ.
CHARLES SWEETING, ESQ.
REV. CLEMENT STRONG.
THOMAS TEESDALE, ESQ.
J. THOMSON, ESQ. (Clitheroe.)
FRANCIS CHARLES TROWER, ESQ.
W. H. TINNEY, ESQ.
REV. T. M. TREHERNE.
MRS. TREHERNE.
SIR CHARLES VAUGHAN.
R. VALPY, ESQ.
MRS. VALPY.
M. VANDE WEYER (two copies).
LADY WALPOLE.
LADY ELIZABETH WHITBREAD.
W. WINGFIELD, ESQ.
MRS. WICKHAM.
MRS. WIMBERLY.
MISS WALLS.
R. WHITE, ESQ.
J. WINTLE, ESQ.
[Heading illustration]
LETTER I.
DEAR SIR,
AS I am about to build a new house, I have determined to avail myself
of your assistance, should it be convenient to you to give it. I do not
by so doing intend that it should be supposed I think that the many
very intelligent architects in this country are incapable of giving me
good advice; but independently of my friendship for you, and great
respect for your talents, I wish to consult one who is not likely to be
so much wedded to the routine of modern Italian villas, Elizabethan
houses, and thatched cottages, as is the case with most of our English
professors: not that I mean to say anything in disparagement of a
Palladian villa, always beautiful, though not always best suited to our
climate. I am also fully sensible of many of the beauties of the old
Elizabethan houses, and also of some of the imitations of them; and a
small thatched cottage is very pretty.
I shall begin by stating the sort of house we want, and give a short
description of the ground on which it is proposed to build it, in order
that you may in the first place, give your notions as to the site, and
the style which you would recommend. On the style, perhaps you would
give us your views in detail, pointing out, as far as your leisure and
inclination will permit, the merits of each, and which on the whole you
prefer.
As regards the ground, we have no park, but sufficient extent of land
to make a large paddock very park-like: it would not suit our views to
have a park: the situation is not romantic; but as the ground is poor
and wild, we shall command more ornament than profit. To the north or
north-west there is a rising terrace, well sheltered with high trees;
this slopes down for about a quarter of a mile into the valley of the
Cray; the aspect is therefore south-east, and this comes best according
to the slope of the ground. If you prefer that the house should stand
high, you may have in front a good terrace of at least two hundred
yards long and eight feet high; if lower down the hill (half way), the
terrace will not be so good, but there will be better shelter from the
north wind, and at the back there will be rising ground, through which
the walks of the pleasure ground may be conducted, and still the house
will be well above the valley. In front, looking over this valley, and
across some fine orchards (for which Kent is celebrated) and some
waving fields of corn, there is a mass of wood on a rising hill, about
equal to the hill on which we are situated; on the right there is a
fine view of Knocholt beeches; in the valley there is the town of
Footscray, seen through the orchard at about half a mile distant, and
by a little dexterous cutting and levelling we shall be able to get a
glimpse of the small winding river.
On the right of the hill on which we are to build, there is a small
spring at present rising in some swampy ground covered with alders;
this we propose to clear, and shall be enabled, if you think it worth
while, to enlarge into a small sheet of water. With this general view,
you will see that we are well off as to aspect, have woods in the
distance, and a valley (of no great beauty indeed, but still a valley)
with a quiet stream, and this is always pleasing. I think it may be
considered as a fair average specimen of English scenery, such as is
met with in the southern counties.
Now as regards the house. There must be a good dining-room, a good
general morning room, which will serve as drawing-room, and a large
library; one or two small rooms, in which to receive persons on
business, &c. As regards bed-rooms, offices, &c. this will be matter of
future consideration, when we have settled the important matter of site
and style. I should, however, mention, that, as circumstances may make
it desirable to add to the size, it will be advisable that there should
be that irregularity in the plan as will admit of this, so that it may
be in the end, a house costing from £10,000 to £12,000.
With respect to the offices, I think we make a great mistake in
England, as we manage to hide them, and lose all the benefit of
increasing the size and importance of the house by these additions. I
know, however, this is a very difficult point to manage, and merely
throw it out for your consideration.
The general building material in this part of the country is brick,
though we are enabled, at no very great cost, to get some stone for
window or door frames, &c.
I have been reading a little about the sites of ancient villas, but
shall not trouble you with my views until I receive your answer:
recollect we have a bad and variable climate, though we go out as much
in the winter as summer; so that there must be at once shelter from the
sun for our short summer, and warmth and shelter during the long
winters and cold springs.
H. B.
[Decorative illustration]
[Heading illustration]
LETTER II.
FOR your letter, accept my thanks. It is doubly flattering to me, being
a foreigner, to be commissioned to make the designs for the country
house you intend to build. Yet while I derive great satisfaction from
the task, I am impressed with the difficulties attending it, one of
which is, that I am at present prevented by business from discussing
the matter with you in person, and am therefore compelled to put my
ideas upon paper. Simple as the commission appears, it however involves
considerations of some moment, and which render it necessary that I
should previously state to you my opinion in detail in regard to the
style I propose to adopt. I have not forgotten what you once said to
me, namely, that in order to make himself intelligible to others, it is
essential that the artist should be clear as to his own meaning. I even
suspect that opinions once defined, if not clearly and sincerely put
down, may lead to misapprehension, and (inasmuch as they commit the
person who gives them) to the misleading of the artist himself. You
invite me, however, to give my opinion, and having freely stated the
difficulties of the undertaking, I begin with more confidence.
What then, with a view to your individual taste, is the style I would
recommend as most suitable for the intended situation and purpose? And
if such a question is now become not an uncommon one, you must allow
that, sixty years ago, no one would have thought of proposing it to an
architect for his consideration. Every architect would then have at
once answered it by saying, "In that style which is in general use, and
according to my own particular views of it." Or during any of the
various epochs of the art, would any one have thought of suggesting to
a Greek, an Italian, or native of the north of Europe, &c. to build in
any other style than that belonging to their respective countries? It
ought also to be borne in mind, that if we occasionally meet with an
intermixture of styles, it is only in buildings of _transition
periods_, during the change from one mode to another; and such periods
were of only short duration, because the previous style had already
outlived itself. Circumstances are now totally altered. We recognize
and practically adopt various styles indiscriminately: nor is it
difficult to explain how it happens that we now employ one and then
another. For this, two reasons may be assigned: the first (a very
meritorious one) is, that we with a generalizing view, anxiously study
and investigate the most difficult examples of art. The second reason
however, is of a very unsatisfactory nature, which is that in our weak
hands no style has been so naturalized among us as to constitute a
permanent canon by which to regulate the modifications of any and every
architectural purpose. This is the cause of that indecision of style
which manifests itself more or less in modern edifices, and of
that changeableness of taste which has hitherto hindered us from
establishing the art upon fixed principles, regulated according to the
high requisites which our modern cultivation requires.
We seem to be of opinion that variety of character is attainable only
by variety of style: hence our Museums are classically _antique_, our
churches after the mode of the middle ages, and so forth, according as
the buildings happen to belong to the class in which any particular
period was most distinguished for buildings of that class. The
character of such examples strikes us by its expressiveness; nor do we
find it difficult, with models before us that we are now acquainted
with and understand, to produce the same kind of effect and expression
by merely copying their physiognomy and style. He, however, who is well
grounded in the study, is aware that at different periods the art was
treated according to its own principles as resulting from different
modes of culture; and that consequently the adoption of a style
previously discarded, though it may suit the vitiated taste of the
artist, as the _haut gout_ pleases the fastidious palate of the
Epicure, yet it can never be pleasing to a really cultivated taste. You
may think me somewhat fantastical, but it appears to me that we cannot
read Homer with perfect relish in a saloon à la Louis Quatorze, or
Shakespeare beneath the roof of a Grecian impluvium; and that it is
only where the character of the surrounding forms and objects in some
degree accord, at least do not harshly contrast with our mental
occupation, that we can fully abandon ourselves to the imaginings of
genius. I might, however, without impropriety, substitute "_character_"
for "_style_" in the question you put to me, and my answer would then
be: Let it be as noble and as cheerful as possible. Still the making a
distinction between style and character does not entirely get rid of
the difficulty; for a person who is as intelligent as you are in
matters of art will say, "Even if you hit the character, the mere
_desire_ to invent an appropriate style does not of itself satisfy me,
and on this account I wish you to state more explicitly which of former
styles you intend mainly to select." This I will now attempt to do, and
begin by stating it as my opinion, that the most perfect architectural
style is that which admits at the same time of a refined style both of
sculpture and of painting:--that which, while it serves as the vehicle
of graceful embellishment, can maintain an equal excellence in itself.
Such, as it appears to me, is the ideal which an architect of the
present day ought to keep in his mind's eye. Yet before we proceed to
inquire which of the principal styles we are acquainted with possesses
such a quality in the most eminent degree, it will be proper to
consider what is the kind of relationship which the three separate arts
of architecture, painting, and sculpture, bear to each other.
According to the usual metaphor, the consanguinity is that of
sisterhood. Yet in my opinion this is somewhat incorrect. In its origin
and development every organic style of architecture has preceded the
other two arts, consequently the relationship in which it stands to
them may more properly be termed maternal, it being under her fostering
protection that they have afterwards grown up: nor would it be
difficult to exemplify this sort of connexion between the three arts by
instances taken from different styles of architecture; and one who has
applied himself to studying the motives and principles governing the
formation of those different styles, will easily follow me in my
remarks.
The two daughter arts were unknown to, or did not exist for the
earliest Asiatic architecture; on which account, imposing as its
gigantic remains are, they oppress the mind by the feeling they excite
of stern and monstrous vastness. In the Egyptian style the growth of
the children arts appears to have been stunted and repressed by the
servitude in which they were kept; nor have any later race or nation
attempted to rival the massiveness of its edifices, tattooed over with
hieroglyphics.
It is only in the genuine architecture of ancient Greece itself, and in
the Italian style of the fifteenth century, that we meet with all the
three arts growing up to completeness together, and as is universally
acknowledged, brought to a very high degree of refinement and
perfection.
Notwithstanding the long continued progressive formation and manifold
development of Gothic architecture, that style failed to attach to, and
as it were to incorporate with itself the two kindred arts, which were
checked both by unfavourableness of climate, and by war and political
disturbances. Architecture was therefore compelled to trust chiefly to
its own power and resources, employing sculpture and painting merely as
subordinate decoration. And who shall say that this style, so full of
creative power, would not have preserved itself more pure, have avoided
falling into the cold and gloomy on the one hand, the bizarre and
overloaded on the other, could it have availed itself of the assistance
of sculpture and painting, so that they should have accompanied it in
all the varieties of its times and developments? This was to an extent
the case with Arabian architecture,[1] which, both in regard to the
dominion it obtained and its organization, has many points of
similarity with the nearly contemporary Gothic style, notwithstanding
the marked distinctions which prevail between them. This reminds me of
the remark of a poetical friend, who once said to me, "Like a rainbow
on the horizon of art, Gothic architecture stretches itself across
Europe from Byzantium to Portugal; while Arabian architecture may be
compared to its reflection, somewhat flattened however, commencing from
the same point, and crossing along the north coast of Africa till it
reaches Spain: or to a reflection in the water, whose wavy surface
occasions some little difference of appearance; and in fact we behold
both styles united together in the amphibious city of Venice." This
simile would be more literally appropriate had the uses to which the
two styles were applied been more nearly alike.
[1] As regards _Arabian architecture_, the parent art may be said
to have been entirely childless, depending entirely on its own
resources, discarding all representation of animal life, whether in
painting or sculpture.
With respect to modern architecture, it may be said that it has quite
rejected the services of the other two arts, and, as I fear, greatly to
its own detriment; while these latter arts, notwithstanding the
eminence they have attained apart from architecture, are not so solidly
united as they otherwise would be, nor capable of so completely
developing their powers, had the union of the three been complete.
It is well known that, owing to the fetters imposed upon them in Egypt
by the religion of the people and its priesthood, it was only in Europe
that sculpture and painting could at different epochs attain to
maturity. But it is not perhaps so generally known or considered, that
it is one characteristic mark of European architecture, that it has at
all times, whether those of its progress and advancement, or its
decline, availed itself of natural forms, both vegetable and animal,
for purposes of decoration; while the Asiatic styles were confined to
geometrical figures for the ornaments.
The above cursory glance at the history of the art, may at least serve
to shew how incumbent it is upon the architect of the present day to
make himself acquainted with the creative power and processes of his
art, by studying them as they actually manifest themselves at different
epochs, and according to the different views and purposes to which the
art was applied. By so doing, however, he is in some danger of being
worked upon by conflicting impressions, occasioned by the diversity of
styles and the opposite tastes they exhibit. Yet, unless I am greatly
mistaken, the whole system of the art, as developed in the different
styles, must henceforth have considerable influence upon our modern
architecture.
Limiting our views for the present to those architectural productions
in which a union with the other arts is more directly attainable, we
find Grecian or early Italian architecture the predominating style. The
last grafted on the former, may be said to be more or less complete in
the greater or less proportion in which it derives its nourishment from
the parent stem. If we look, for example, to the progress or course of
painting in Italy, that art flourished there in proportion to the
nourishment it derived from the antique. The works of Mantegna, M.
Angelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Raphael bear testimony to this; and
those great men would probably have attained to a higher degree of
excellence, had they been as well acquainted with the sculptures of the
Parthenon, and the Greek bronzes, as they were with the works of the
Romans. Most assuredly a knowledge of the architecture of the time of
Pericles, or of that of Pompey, would not have been without its
influence upon such men as Bramante, San Gallo, and Baldassore Peruzzi,
nor have failed of being turned to account by them: observe, however,
that this remark is not intended to depreciate what they actually
accomplished, nor to disparage the style which they formed. These
explorers had unquestionably discovered new veins in the rich mine
which had been opened by the Greeks; as the Romans, who were the
immediate imitators of the Greeks, had already extended the one first
of all worked. In all subsequent operations, as in what the French term
the _Renaissance_ style, nothing more was done than to go on
excavating, seldom, however, with sufficient pains or caution, so as to
separate completely the gold from the dross. When, therefore, I propose
to make a design in the "Greek style," I wish you to observe that I
understand by this term a striving after the purity of this canon, but
at the same time with a reserved right to the free use of those modes
and motives with which later European architecture supplies us. If a
determinate name must be given to the style, I propose I should call
it, "the Renaissance style of the nineteenth century."
But many may say, "How conveniently he contrives to get rid of the
Gothic architecture!" while others will exclaim, "According to such
principles, a very pretty sort of medley is likely to be produced." In
answer to the first set of objections I reply: "If you can introduce
modern sculpture and painting into Gothic architecture without
prejudice to _them_ or _it_, I will say that you have attained a great
end." To the others I should reply: "You misunderstand or pervert my
meaning. I have not spoken of a merely mixing up of different styles,
but of compounding them together; between which two processes there is,
I conceive, a wide difference, the ingredients being merely put
together in the one case, without losing their respective qualities;
while in the other they amalgamate with each other, and produce an
entirely new combination: and it is in accomplishing combinations of
this kind that the power of genuine art manifests itself; and the
distinction may be likened to the difference between a mechanical and a
chemical combination. Nor are some compound styles of architecture less
beautiful than others which are quite unmixed."
I know not whether these remarks will prove of much service to you, but
I trust they will at least enable you, after seeing what are my views
generally on the subject, to make your own suggestions in return for my
further guidance.
I am, &c.
A. C.
[Heading illustration]
LETTER III.
DEAR SIR,
THANKS for your letter in answer to mine, or rather in part answer to
it, for you have confined yourself solely to a discussion of the style
to be selected. A subject which has hitherto, I think, not been
sufficiently considered; at least in England. I believe that amateurs
order a Grecian Palladian, or Elizabethan house without having much
speculated on what are the different merits or demerits of each, but
merely with reference to some one example which may be in their
recollection, and which may have pleased them; or what is oftener the
case, they submit to be guided by the bent of their architect, who in
general, are wedded to some particular favourite style. Thus, we have
Mr. ----, all Gothic and Elizabethan; Mr. ----, all Italian, with a
dash of the Byzantine, Renaissance, &c.
I am, I own, much pleased as well as instructed by this discussion, and
I hope you will not consider me as intruding too much upon your time
and patience, if I venture to seek further elucidations of some of the
positions in your letter. I quite agree it is clear that as yet we have
a style to choose, and that in future ages, no architect will be able
to apply any definite character to our present mode of building. I
must, however, premise what indeed my letter will fully prove, that
your partiality has induced you to give me credit for greater knowledge
in matters of art, especially as regards architecture, than I possess.
I agree that the style which best admits of being combined with the
sister arts (or filial if you please) of painting and sculpture, must
be the one to adopt, and that it is clear their union is always a
mutual improvement. It seems you come to the conclusion that the pure
Greek style of architecture is that which best admits of this union.
Now, as regards domestic architecture, I am not sure that I have any
very clear perception of what is pure Greek style. I suspect our notion
as regards a house of pure Greek style, is a cube of building of mock
stone with a portico, if a large house; or if a small one, with some
thin paste-like pilasters, and a certain number of parallelogram holes
cut into the walls for windows, with two smaller cubes for wings; and,
in the inside, a repetition of the outside, in the shape of the rooms;
that is, two oblong rooms for dining and drawing rooms, with an oblong
hall placed the other way: the usual accompaniment of folding doors,
and two or three small and often dark rooms at the back. There are
certainly some changes rung on these forms, but the theme is always the
same. I call Sir R. Smirties' Post Office a gigantic small Grecian
house. I am aware that the Palladian improvements, or additions, (which
ever you will) have multiplied the resources, and have given us much to
delight; namely, the circular dome, pillars, and gallery, and the
consequent change in the disposition of the apartments. I mention these
points to let you see the nakedness of the land, and trust to your
kindness for better instruction.
You assume that the Grecian style is the best adapted to pictorial and
sculptural decoration, but I do not see the reason of this; in fact,
without a more precise definition of what you mean by Greek style, as
adapted to domestic architecture, I do not see how this can be shewn.
You state that the Gothic style is not so well adapted to the union
with the filial arts, and that hitherto when so used they were
subordinate only. I shall be the more ready to agree when I have some
further exposition on this point. Though not so distrustful as our
Royal Society who adopt "_Nullius in verba_" as their motto, yet cling
to an old monkish law maxim of Lord Coke; I may say of your position
what he says of law, "_Lex plus laudatur quando ratione probatur_." I
am aware that the Gothic churches are often overloaded with ornament,
and that the sculpture often seems as if merely stuck on, and the
pictures are hung up as ornaments, not as part and parcel of the
building; and, I believe, that tapestry was often called in aid to
decorate our cathedrals, and with great effect; but is it of necessity
so? Are there no exceptions? at all events, it is not so in the
Byzantine style, which approaches so nearly to the Gothic; and, as
regards the Arabian, (take for instance the Alhambra) the fair
daughters unite in great harmony with their beautiful mother. You have
besides omitted, I think, one point in which Gothic architecture has
been greatly aided by the pictorial art, namely, the painted windows:
With hues romantic tinged the gorgeous pane,
To fill with holy light this wondrous fane,
To aid the builder's model richly rude,
By no Vitruvian symmetry subdued.
I begin to feel that it is probable I have entirely mistaken what you
mean by Grecian style, and that it does not preclude the use of arches,
groined ceilings, domes, &c. I have been the more diffuse on this point
because I own I have a leaning to what we have called ELIZABETHAN;
conceiving, whether true or not, that there is more fitness in it for
domestic architecture than in the Grecian style; that the regularity
and repetition of form, which in a great building is delightful, in a
small one does not please from the diminutive size of the objects. And,
again, as regards the material and colour, as we use Grecian style in
this country, the material is either white stone or white stucco, which
in our climate appears cold, and does not give half so much the notion
of warmth and comfort as the fine rich-toned red brick; and what refers
to the exterior, is perhaps equally applicable to the interior.
Although in a building on a grand scale the mind is pleased with
symmetry and regularity, "in little" this is irksome, and gives the
notion of poverty, in fact, too soon lets you into the secret of the
whole house; there is no surprise, no discovery to make. Shew me a
Palladian villa a mile off, and I could draw you the plan of the inside
at once. Indeed, I could walk blindfolded into the drawing-room,
dining-room, library, and boudoir, and go up to bed in the best
bed-room, without a guide, or a light. Here are no
Rich windows that exclude the light,
And passages that lead to nothing.
A good deal also, I am willing to own, arises from association and
national prejudices; some of our most delightful houses are built in
this style, and they have, at all events within, signs of harmony in
the style of decoration, and in the accessories. The gardens and
out-buildings were often made more appropriate and better suited to the
house than in any other architectural attempts that we have made; and,
I believe, no Englishman ever fancied building a house that did not
have the large bay window and the large fireplace (against all
principles of good grates and Arnott's stoves I admit,) and the low
groined passage and the panelled hall in his mind. But it seems you
think it most difficult
----------"To reconcile
The willing graces to the Gothic pile,"
or rather say coy than willing. I beg you will not suppose I am
opposing your views, all I mean is to canvass and to be sure that I
understand them.
I have to repeat that I agree entirely that the style is best which is
most susceptible of uniting the three arts; but I only wish to know why
the Greek is most susceptible; and what is the kind of sculpture and
painting you wish to unite; in order to see that such a union is
suitable to our climate, and can be obtained at a reasonable cost, for
you must bear in mind that I want to build a country-house, not a
palace!
It is a long time since I was in Italy, and when I was there I did not
pay so much attention to architecture as I should do, if I were to go
over the same ground again, now that I have got a house to build; but
there is a strong impression on my mind that the other parts of Europe
may rival or surpass us in palaces and grand architectural monuments,
yet that there is no country which would present so many good hints in
domestic architecture as England; always referring to the great points,
convenience, and comfort; for I own, as _fitness_ is the guiding
principles of all perfection in building, I conceive it essential in
purely domestic architecture, that a character of fitness for
habitation and comfort should always be prominent.
I am a great admirer of Balzac, and I think one of his best
descriptions of still life is the account of the house in his
"Recherche de l'absolu;" it is so good that I should be tempted, if it
were not too long for a letter, to copy and send it to you as a model,
if not of what a house should be, at least of how one should be
described.[2]
Yours, &c.
H. B.
[2] Unfortunately these letters were written long before the
appearance of Mr. Fonnereau's very intelligent and instructive
Observations on Architecture were printed.
[Decorative illustration]
[Heading illustration]
LETTER IV
DEAR SIR,
BUT for the trouble of answering your letter I should have been much
amused by your remarks upon what, at no very distant period, used to
pass for Grecian architecture; but thank heaven we have passed over
that barren tract of human invention. Continuing in the same strain,
you would fain have me believe you are one of those pilgrims to the
shrine of art, who fancy they have now luckily gained a verdant and
flowery oasis; or rather that they have discovered the true Eden
itself, which it seems is no other than the Elizabethan style; and to
complete all, you treat me as the evil spirit, harbouring deadly enmity
against this fair paradise.
It is easy enough for you to give your opinions off-hand on these
matters, but with us the case is different: the architect finds it less
difficult to exhibit his ideas in his design, than to explain all the
motives which lead to it,--how the ideas exactly arose, and how far
they may have been influenced, either by our studies or our fancy. I
must be allowed, therefore, to return to my former examination of the
subject of style, and my deduction from such examination.
You will call to mind that the principal different manners which have
prevailed in Europe, are, first the Greek style, and the additions made
to it by the Roman adaptation of it, then the Gothic in its different
periods, and the different treatments of such periods in the different
countries; and under this period may be added the partial adoption of
the Arabian style in the south. Then this great æra of the revival or
Renaissance style, as it seemingly arose in Italy, France, Germany,
Flanders, and England. This being, as regards England, your boasted
Elizabethan style.
It is only very recently that my attention has been bestowed on that
style which in the north of Europe succeeded to the Gothic; whereas,
till then, it had been all along imagined that the Italians alone had
comprehended the spirit of the antique, and been able to revive it in a
newer form of their own; an error against which we should be upon our
guard. Why should we not recognize the various modes of treating the
antique, as we find them in different countries; and admit them to be
all emanations from one common source and principle. In like manner,
the Gothic principle or style was in common adopted and worked out
through the whole of Europe, and was in common consentaneously
abandoned wherever it had flourished; and the elements of ancient
architecture became as commonly substituted for it. And this
abandonment of the Gothic, it may be remarked, is the first instance in
all history, when the creative power of a people (and, by people, I do
not mean a single nation, but the whole of Christendom, united by one
common religion) has survived the style of architecture, originally
invented and brought to perfection by themselves.
This last subject would be an interesting and fertile one to
investigate, and would throw considerable light on the development of
the human mind throughout Europe. Such consideration, even confined
merely as regards architecture, would be one too far from the present
subject now to discuss. Since, however, the Gothic as well as the
revival of the antique principle have extended over all Europe, in
order to attain a knowledge of either, we should not confine ourselves
to isolated specimens of particular countries. It is only by taking a
survey of the entire field of Gothic architecture, that we can rightly
comprehend its varied powers. Is it possible I would ask, from the mere
acquaintance with English Gothic to imagine, or from its elements to
compose a tower like that of the Minster of Freiburg in Brisgau, or a
loggia of similar character to that called the Loggia da Orcagna, at
Florence? On the other hand an acquaintance with continental Gothic
alone will furnish no idea of the peculiar character of the English
perpendicular class. The Renaissance style which is fraught with so
much plasticity and variety, springs also but from one root. In like
manner as it is impossible for a botanist to understand all the species
of one particular family without tracing all that are found in
different parts of the globe; so too, is it impossible to become
acquainted with the power of any one style of architecture without a
similar comparative study of all its specimens, as exhibited in the
works of different nations which have adopted it. To the north of
Europe must justly be allowed the merit of having exhausted the whole
circuit of Gothic architecture, and the application of its principles;
this was certainly not accomplished in Italy. It is therefore on this
side of the Alps that we observe many of the motives and principles of
the Gothic retained to a very late period not disturbed, as was the
case in Italy, by types from the antique. At the same time it must be
admitted, that when the style founded upon this latter, began to find
its way northwards, the two sister arts, painting and sculpture, though
they followed in the train of architecture, did not strike root very
deeply, but were for the most part treated capriciously and
mechanically as mere handicrafts; and this was especially the case in
England. It is therefore remarked with some truth, that the Renaissance
style is characterized in Italy by greater delicacy and beauty than
elsewhere; in France and the Low countries by greater richness, and in
England by capriciousness and extravagance. Lest, however, the term
itself, Renaissance, should be thought too loose and vague, it may be
proper to define it as used to signify "that style which everywhere
succeeded immediately to the Gothic."
In Italy, this first period of the proper application of the antique
terminates with the tendency of Michael Angelo, to destroy the true
proportions of his buildings by colossal details; on the other parts of
the continent it disappeared in consequence of the diffusion of M.
Angelo's taste by the Jesuits; and in England it terminated at the time
of Wren. Accordingly, this architectural period extends very little
beyond a single century, commencing in other countries about the time
when it was already on the decline in Italy.
In what I have just been stating, I must be understood to allude to one
uniform aim, namely, the free appropriation and adaptation of the
elements of the antique style to modern purposes; consequently it is
evident that the so-called Elizabethan style is only one of the links
of a progressive series of such attempts. You must, therefore, admit
that architecture which is capable of producing independent works out
of its own resources, and from its own principles, is degraded to what
is little better than mere decoration and scene painting, when,
(apprehensive of falling into contradiction and want of harmony, unless
it retains all the individual particulars of extant examples,) it
timidly strives to imitate the dialect of a single province. How short
a time, however, must the impression produced by such mummery last! and
how long the impression of a work of architecture is destined to
remain! It is because we are ashamed of, or mistrust the results of our
own study and conviction, that we venture to exhibit ourselves to
posterity, merely as the copyists of examples; the repute of which is
already established, and which may be learnt and repeated by rote? At
various periods men have shewn themselves either barbarous or puerile
in their notions on art; yet never till now such slavish copyists, such
mere plagiarists, such mocking-birds in style. You may judge by this
sally in what an ill humour I am, at finding that you would shut me up
in a cage and there make me sing. If you examine your Elizabethan
architecture with some little critical attention, you will hardly fail
to perceive that, with all its richness of expression, the elementary
sounds are no more harmonious than the crowing of a cock, or the
braying of an ass.
All this concerns merely the STYLE, as style; for in other respects we
often meet with much that deserves praise; convenient arrangement, and
contrivance, striking effect, and much cleverness of construction and
execution, although so far from being pure or refined, the taste
displayed may be decidedly vulgar and coarse. I freely confess that the
merits I have just mentioned, were retained in the architecture of the
north of Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: I say
retained, because the Gothic style that was then abandoned, had been
treated with masterly and skill, and shewed disciplined artificers in
all that belongs to mechanical execution; consequently, the ability
thus produced had only to employ itself upon a fresh task. At the end
of the last century, on the contrary, so completely had every thing
like a school of the art disappeared, that at the University of
Gottingen, architecture was taught as supplementary to the elementary
course of mathematics. Is it then to be wondered at that we should have
been filled with stupid wonder at the sublime works then newly brought
to light, or that we should have set about copying them for the nonce,
out of the affectation of classical purity, but without bestowing any
study on the peculiar motives to be detected in them, or on the
necessary alterations to be made in consequence of new exigences?
If we allow that as far as it proceeded, Grecian architecture is
stamped by perfect beauty, it is of little moment to our argument
whether it was so comprehensive as it might have been, and had
sufficiently developed itself for those purposes which we now more
especially require; since the perfection it did actually attain in the
direction it took, ought to be sufficient to inspire the artist. It was
not necessary that the latter should surrender up the freedom belonging
to him as such, and confine himself to following Grecian motives and
intentions. In fact, the peculiar charm,--the grace and freshness of
Grecian architecture become withered as soon as we begin to treat it
according to dry systematic rules. The Vitruvius, capable of
legislating for it according to its genius and true spirit perhaps is
not yet born! For indulging at such length in these somewhat abstract
remarks upon style alone, I must again entreat your pardon. You ask for
some more distinct and explicit ideas on the subject; and are
apparently, like many others, of opinion, that the remains of a few
temples, such as we behold in Stuart and Revett, comprise nearly the
whole of Greek architecture. The chief point for our present
consideration is, how far it had accommodated itself to buildings for
domestic purposes: and here I must remind you that Pliny's description
of his villas are still extant. It must, indeed, be confessed that
those two residences do not belong to the epoch of Pericles; yet they
belong nevertheless to that same series of actual Greek plans and
constructions which have been preserved to us at Pompeii and
Herculaneum, and which Sir W. Gell's tasteful delineations have
rendered so familiar to all. Many remains of the same class in the
vicinity of Rome, and more especially in the Golfo di Gaeta, at
Puzzoli, and in the environs of Naples, sufficiently attest the fancy
and variety with which the ancients availed themselves of the
conditions imposed by peculiarities of ground and locality,--contrived
to combine the advantages of coolness and shade on the one hand, with
the glow of sunshine on the other; to provide a frame and foreground
for the prospect from the house; and to produce happily imagined
effects and picturesqueness of character by means of the irregularity
and declivity of the ground.