_The New Reading-Room; Sir C. Barry’s Plans; Completion and Breakfast;
Mr Hosking’s Plans; Controversy; Bust by Baron Marochetti; Austria
Applies for Plans of Reading-Room._
It has been, and doubtless for some centuries to come will be, a matter
of regret that the unrivalled collection called the British Museum has
not, after the incalculable labour bestowed, and the vast sums of money
spent upon it, found a home more worthy of its invaluable contents than
the present building. Of this huge pile—an irregular oblong—but little
appeals to the eye, less to the power of discussion. The Eastern and
Western Wings still remain partially exposed to view in all their normal
hideousness of yellow brick, unadorned by aught save a few meagre
mouldings. The front, being, of course, the most conspicuous part of the
structure, has been the object of attention, and has been ornamented in
a manner suiting it to the public gaze. To effect this desirable, and
certainly most legitimate object, choice has strangely been made of a
style which, in itself most beautiful, is so hampered and restricted by
the straitest and severest rules as to be almost incapable of adaptation
to purposes of modern utility, and a magnificent Ionic portico and
peristyle have been erected; the building, as a whole, thus presenting a
striking contrast to any other structure to be found in the metropolis.
Confront the British Museum for one moment with the Madeleine of Paris,
and how great is the difference! In the latter is seen the nearest
approach to true Grecian architecture, combined with admirable
proportions, and tasteful and correct ornamentation; by admission of
light from the roof, the unsightliness of windows inserted in the walls
is avoided, and, in its entirety, the building fairly represents that
which it purports to be.
Let the visitor, however, enter, and he will find himself somewhat
disappointed; for, instead of seeing a tolerably correct Greek temple,
he will find a singularly ineffective and mediocre Christian Church. The
profuseness of decoration, much of it foreign to the style, the want of
power in what should be the central point of attraction, the general
horizontal character of the lines, throwing out the building in an
unnatural degree—all show the abortiveness of an effort to lend the
rigidity of ancient forms to the exigencies of modern tastes.
Still, to compare the Madeleine, with all its faults, to the British
Museum, would be an insult to the former; not that the classical façade
of our own building is without merit: the nobility and majesty of the
portico and colonnade cannot well be denied, and, if built of white
marble (supposing the brightness of the marble could be preserved in
this variable climate) instead of their present dingy material, they
would have constituted, by their own merit, a most striking and
dignified object, whatever cavils might have existed as to the reality
of the purpose to which they would have been applied.
A certain distance, however, is requisite for the view, and this it is
most difficult to obtain; on closer inspection it will be seen that the
imposing range of pillars rather draws attention to, than serves to
conceal, the frightful sash windows which glare from behind it, and
whose light it obscures.
In the tympanum of the portico is a group of sculptured figures by Sir
R. Westmacott. To this M. Edgar Vinet, in a notice of the British Museum
in the _Journal des Débats_, written in 1858 (30th of December) alludes
in the following words:—“Un fronton récemment terminé, et dans lequel
Sir Richard Westmacott, ce qui se conçoit pour un sujet pareil, a
représenté, d’une manière un peu confuse, l’homme passant de l’état
sauvage, sans l’influence de la religion, à la civilisation et au
progrès.”
This cluster of sculpture is by no means happy, and the kindly phrase of
our critic, “une manière un peu confuse,” might, with a little freedom
and more truth, be rendered by the English words, muddle, cram, and
confusion.
On either flank of the main building, and in advance of it, is a block
of official dwelling-houses, which, as some may remember, called down
much denunciation at the time they were erected; they are, however, so
void of pretentiousness that they seem hardly to deserve any very lavish
outpouring of righteous indignation. It is enough to say of them that
they would have been better away.
The British Museum is, however, more admirable inside than out. Here,
nevertheless, the Nemesis of the style pursues the observer even more
unrelentingly. If some of the vast and dismal rooms be not the very
halls of Eblis, at least they are eminently fitted for the depositories
of the sarcophagi of those who have descended thither. The beauty of
their contents may, it is true, engross the visitor’s attention for a
time, but he can hardly hope to remain long free from the depression and
melancholy with which the surrounding air seems impregnated. The
lighting (and here, again, the blame must be exclusively laid on the
style adopted) is in many places most defective; as to the mural
decoration, it cannot be better described than in the words of the
already quoted M. Vinet:—A l’exception de la salle de lecture, vaste
rotonde dont la coupole reluit d’or la, décoration intérieure du Musée
Britannique vous étonne par sa simplicité; les murailles sont nues,
quelques méandres, peints à l’encaustique, entourent des plafonds percés
par un vitrage, par où passe une lumière froide et grise: voilà tout ce
que l’orgueilleuse Albion a cru devoir accorder à l’embellissement
intérieur de son Musée: décoration conçue avec un tel puritanisme
qu’elle est restée au dessous des salles d’attente des chemins de fer,
comme ornementation et comme goût. Une large cheminée de fonte, chauffée
à blanc huit mois de l’année, occupe le centre de chaque pièce, et, par
son prosaïsme forme le plus étrange contraste avec les œuvres
élégantes, filles du soleil, qui l’entourent.”
To the objection that those who thus flatly condemn one form of
architecture are bound to suggest another more suitable, a ready, and by
no means embarrassing answer is forthcoming. The Pointed, the most
beautiful and ductile of all styles, may be left out of consideration,
as being hardly of sufficient congruity to the relics of art stored in
the National collection. Moreover, to have attempted a Gothic structure
at the time when the present Museum was built, might have afforded an
instructive example of _corruptio optimi pessima_, but, in all
probability, would have failed in point of utility, and would most
certainly have been an outrage on good taste.
It is hardly possible, however, to suppose that the illustrious
architect of the British Museum was not as conversant with Roman as with
Greek architecture, or that he was wholly unacquainted with the
Romano-Italian works of Wren or Palladio.
As the Roman, unlike the Grecian, and still more unlike the Pointed,
does not mainly depend for its beauty on the lines of its construction,
the facility for legitimately decorating a building of the shape of the
British Museum would have been far greater in the first-named style. Who
shall say that in a gallery of the Roman type the statues of Roman
Emperors, or even the monuments of Assyrian Kings, are out of place? or
that the _disjecta membra_ of a Greek frieze or pediment would be
incongruous with an architecture so nearly akin to their own? At any
rate, we should have been able to view them with comfort, which is
scarcely the case at present; for the power of lighting would have been
increased tenfold. Opportunities, too, of a more effective system of
intramural ornamentation would have been offered, and many other minor
advantages, conducive to beauty or convenience, secured. Happily, in the
latest addition to the great building—an addition that owes alike its
origin, position, and form of construction to the enterprise and genius
of Panizzi—the ponderous and unsuccessful imitation of the Greek style
has been laid aside, and a light and graceful form of the Italian order
adopted.
This little gem of architecture—this “MARGARITA”—is the “New
Reading-Room.”
The history and traditions of the Reading-Room at the British Museum
have been so faithfully and minutely recorded by others that it would be
unpardonable to overcrowd our space in this work with too full a
description of them. Since the year 1758, a Reading-Room has always been
attached to the Museum, and the original apartment was, by all accounts,
especially comfortable and even luxurious. Though small, it seems to
have been sufficiently large to meet the requirements of those early
days of its existence. We read of this pleasant corner room in “the
basement story, with one oak table and twenty chairs,” so small as to be
fitted for only twenty readers, yet it was seldom patronized to the
extent of its full capabilities. In one respect it must have been truly
paradisiacal, for it opened into a delightful garden in which, as
tradition has it, the presiding deity was accustomed to walk, although
not in the cool of the evening. This gentleman, Dr. Templeman,
afterwards Secretary to the Society of Arts, seems, notwithstanding, to
have found his duties sufficiently onerous. After eight months’
incumbency, “he takes the opportunity of reminding the Committee that he
begs to be relieved from the excessive attendance of six hours’
continuance each day, for it is more than he is able to bear,” and on
March 13, 1760, he records with a chuckle “Last Tuesday, no company
coming to the Reading-Room, Dr. Templeman ventured to go away about 2
o’clock.” Not above twenty readers were admitted monthly during the
first few months, and when the novelty of the institution had worn off,
even this average declined to ten or twelve. It is true that among these
appear the names of Johnson, Gray, Hume and Blackstone. Nor were the
regulations patterns of liberality. The statutes directed that notice
should be given in writing the day before to the officer in attendance
by each person “what book or manuscript he will be desirous of perusing
the following day; which book or manuscript in such request will be
lodged in some convenient place in the said room, and will from thence
be delivered to him by the officer of the said room.”
From the delightful garden with which it communicated, and its almost
rural surroundings; from the illustrious names of those ornaments of the
silver age of our literature who frequented it, and in the excellence of
whose works one almost seems to discover traces of quiet ease of study,
such as this resort must have afforded, it is with mingled feelings of
regret and envy that we turn to our own time and lament that the world
of readers and writers should have arrived at such monstrous dimensions
and such unmanageable proportions.
One great improvement has recently been effected, the electric light—the
latest application of science to the means of illuminating large
buildings, has been, through the energy of Mr. E. A. Bond, the present
Principal Librarian, most successfully introduced into this
department—gladdening the hearts of students by increasing their hours
of research, and enabling them to seek, with its clear effulgence, the
information which they desire to possess.
Our contemplation of Panizzi’s majestic work has, however, its dark
shade. It reminds us sadly of the bustling and feverish spirit which
pervades our present, literature; of the enormous trade of bookmaking
openly carried on amongst us, and of the lack both of dignity and polish
only too often conspicuous in the best works of our best modern authors.
The quiet ease and learned leisure gradually died away, readers and
authors of all classes rapidly increased; insignificant as were their
numbers compared with the present multitude, it became incumbent on the
authorities to prepare something more than the single and comfortable
room with its garden; and in the old House and in its last days, three
rooms were set apart for their accommodation.
To the first Reading-Room in the new building but scant praise can be
accorded. The appointments of it were in no wise satisfactory, whilst
the mode of access was almost mean and decidedly incommodious.
Previously crowded, as a rule, it is on record that, although
constructed to hold only about _120_ readers, no less than _200_ persons
were frequently crammed into it. A larger apartment was, therefore,
urgently called for; and, in 1838, the old room was closed, another
being opened in a different quarter of the building. This, divided into
two compartments, was about one-third larger than its predecessor, and
in its size alone its superiority appears to have consisted. It is true
that, in many respects, its fittings were far better, that a more
convenient entrance was constructed, and that more attention was paid to
the comfort, if not so much of the readers, at any rate of certain of
the attendant officials, who had before this been wretchedly housed.
The lighting by means of windows many feet from the ground was, in both
rooms, lamentably deficient. In neither had due care been taken to
provide sufficient ventilation. The admission of fresh air appears to
have been chiefly effected by the simple contrivance of opening the
windows, a practice not always possible, and not unlikely, at certain
seasons of the year to be attended with as much danger as would have
been the retention of foul air. Readers who remained in the stifling
atmosphere of either room for any length of time were known to complain
of a peculiar languor and headache, and the expressive term _Museum
Megrims_ was invented to describe the uneasy sensations of the too
persistent student.
The following is an extract from a private letter, written a short time
since, in which, although the writer confesses that his memory, at this
distance of time, is not as fresh as it might be, a fair description is
given of the second or intermediate Reading-Room, as it was in the year
1846:—
“What I recollect about it is as follows. It was entered by a sort of
lane going down from Montague-place into what must have been at one
time a stable-yard. You then went up a staircase into a long, lofty
room.... I think there were two great sort of chests of hot water
pipes on each side of the entrance from the staircase. The entrance
divided the room into two unequal parts, and I fancy that the smaller
portion was reserved for readers of MSS. The catalogue was in a series
of presses near the west wall, commencing about opposite the entrance,
and extending north. The rest of the floor of the room was occupied by
reading-tables. At the north end was a thing like a buttery hatch.
From this you got your books, having previously given your docket
describing them. The walls of the room, for eight or ten feet from the
floor, were crowded with book-cases, except at the entrance and hatch,
and all accessible to readers in the room. I think the room was
lighted by windows above the book-cases, but, as far as I can
recollect, on the east side only. I think the other walls above the
book-cases resting on the floor of the reading room were also covered
with book-cases, but these not accessible from the Reading-Room, but
from galleries, &c., opening into the other parts of the building. I
recollect nothing about the ventilation, but I know that after working
some time, you found your head very hot and heavy, and your feet cold.
These were the symptoms of the ‘Museum Megrims,’ about which there
was, shortly after my experience of the place, a deal of chaff in the
papers. I fully sympathized with it at the time.”
The Library of the British Museum continued to increase in proportion to
its rapid influx of readers; and in 1849, the collection, excluding the
masses of MSS., pamphlets, and other unbound works, amounted to no less
than 435,000 volumes.[Q] What a vast acquisition must this have been to
the public, whether to the student, the critic, or the occasional
lounger!
-----
Footnote Q:
In 1880, 1,300,000 volumes.
-----
The power of exercising rights of ownership was, however, by no means
commensurate with the legal title to the property: indeed, owing to lack
of room and other conveniences, such rights, in the case of very many
who would otherwise have taken advantage of them, scarcely extended to
liberty of inspecting the outsides of the volumes; as to the insides,
they were literally closed books.
Such a state of affairs made a deep impression on Panizzi, whose
incessant anxiety for, and interest in the Department over which he
presided, added to his repugnance to suffering so much of its contents
to lie idle and unprofitable, caused in him a ceaseless feeling of
regret. He saw and knew, only too well, how alone reform was to take
place—viz., by provision of ample room, and by due attention too the
requirements of readers, at the same time securing the necessary amount
of space in the building for the ever increasing additions to the
Library.
From a very early period his attention had been directed to the
requirements of the Reading-Room, and an important improvement in its
service had been introduced by him even before he became Keeper of
Printed Books. Before his time, the press-mark denoting the place of a
book in the Library was not affixed to the Reading-room copy of the
Catalogue, and the reader simply indicated the books he wished to see,
which were then looked out in the Library copy of the Catalogue by the
attendants. This system, which may have answered very well while the
daily average of visitors did not exceed thirty, became entirely
inadequate when they amounted to two hundred; and Mr. Baber, at
Panizzi’s suggestion, directed that press-marks should be put to the
Reading-Room Catalogue, so that the readers might search it for
themselves. This innovation occasioned an immense saving of time, but
was naturally resented by many to whom time was of less importance than
trouble. Sir Harris Nicolas, an excellent type of the really
hard-working reader, thought differently, and spontaneously addressed a
letter to Panizzi, congratulating him upon his reform. This incident had
an amusing sequel. Sir H. Nicolas saw fit to assail Panizzi’s management
in a series of anonymous articles in the _Spectator_ newspaper, and
among other points censured the very regulation of which he had
previously approved. A correspondence ensued, in the course of which
Panizzi cited the material parts of Sir Harris’s former letter to
himself without marks of quotations, and Sir H. Nicolas mistaking his
own arguments for his antagonist’s, fell foul of them in a fashion which
gave Panizzi the opportunity he sought of withdrawing from further
controversy with “a man endowed with so flexible a judgment, and so
treacherous a memory.”
The improvements introduced by Panizzi into the internal arrangements of
the Old Reading-Room were nevertheless trivial in comparison with those
which he was destined to accomplish by the construction of a new one.
In 1850, he submitted to the Trustees his first plan for a new
Reading-Room. As this, however, involved the acquisition of land and the
consequent erection of new buildings, it was rejected on account of the
delay and expense which would inevitably follow. The next plan of reform
relating to the enlargement of the capacities of the Museum in general
was brought forward by the Trustees themselves. This or a similar scheme
had long since been mooted, but was regularly formulated for the first
time in 1848. Their proposal was to buy up the whole of one portion of
the street, on the east side of the Museum, to build on the site, and to
complete that part of the edifice which faced Russell Square with a
grand façade. This scheme, the cost of which was calculated to amount to
only about a quarter of a million, did not receive the favourable
consideration of Government. There is much reason to be thankful that
the infliction of a second grand façade has been spared us. The first
sketch for the New Reading-Room was drawn by Panizzi himself on April
18, 1852, and shown to Mr. Winter Jones on the same day.
On May 5 following, Panizzi sent in a report setting forth at large, and
in forcible terms, the discomfort and inconvenience existing in his own
Department of the Institution, and recommending, as a remedy, the
construction of the new building in the inner quadrangle. It will not be
amiss to give this report _in extenso_, as it will present something
more than a sketch of the work intended—omitting, of course, all minor
and unimportant details.
“May 5th, 1852.
“Mr. Panizzi has the honour to submit the following statement and
suggestions to the Trustees, in the hope that the pressing importance
of the subject will be deemed a sufficient apology for thus urging it
once more on their early and favourable consideration.”
“It is a known and admitted fact that there is no more available space
in which to arrange books in a proper and suitable manner in the
Printed Book Department; that the collection is, therefore, falling,
and will continue to fall, into arrears, the consequences of which are
also too well known to be here further insisted upon; that want of
accommodation in the Reading-Rooms, not only for readers, but for
books of reference and for catalogues, prevents many persons from
making use of the collection of printed books, whilst actual readers
pursue their researches and studies amidst many and various
discomforts, all owing to the crowded state of those rooms.”
“Supposing that it were at once determined to remove to suitable
buildings, to be erected for the purpose, some portion of any of the
collections now forming part of the British Museum, or that in order
to provide room for books an enlargement were forthwith decided upon
of the present Museum building, as Mr. Panizzi had the honour to
suggest long ago, it is manifest that many years must elapse before
the advantages to be derived from either alternative would be felt.
The additions which would in the interval be made to other collections
would greatly curtail the advantages ultimately proposed for the
readers, and for the department of Printed Books, both of which would
in the meanwhile continue to labour under the present and eventual
disadvantages already pointed out. Under any circumstances, therefore,
and whatever be the determination adopted as to provision being
eventually made for the general wants of the British Museum, the
claims of the readers require the immediate and special consideration
of the Trustees.”
“With respect, moreover, to this important part of the subject—the
accommodation for readers—it seems to Mr. Panizzi that none of the
existing parts of the British Museum offer such comforts,
conveniences, and advantages as appear to him absolutely required for
a proper Reading-room of such an institution—a circumstance to which
he particularly begs to direct the attention of the Trustees. Having
long held this opinion, Mr. Panizzi suggested from the first, and has
often suggested since, whenever the question of additions to the
present building has been brought under discussion, that a new
Reading-Room should be erected; and this suggestion he is more and
more convinced must be acted upon, even though portions of the
collections now contained in the British Museum were removed from it,
and the space which they occupy were destined to receive printed
books,—a destination which, it may be incidentally remarked, will be
convenient only with respect to certain parts of the building.”
“Mr. Panizzi thinks that the inconveniences now felt can be completely
remedied as well as all eventual difficulties removed in a short time,
and at a comparatively small cost, by the erection of a suitable
building in the inner quadrangle, which is at present useless.... The
building now suggested consists of an outer wall, not higher than the
sill of the windows of the quadrangle—about 18 feet. This wall is
intended only to protect the contents of the building, not to support
it. It ought to be supported by iron columns, and proper iron frames
and girders. It would be for the Trustees to consider of what material
the rest of the building should consist, and whether the whole or only
parts of its roof should be of glass; of course this may partly depend
on the quantity of light required.”
“All the partitions of the several portions (marked on the plan
accompanying the report), with the exception of those intended to
separate closets, washing-rooms, &c., &c., from the rest of the
building, should be formed by book-cases of uniform size, holding
books on both sides.”
“Such fittings and furniture would then be of use were it considered
expedient at some future period to remove the proposed building
altogether, and provide a Reading-Room elsewhere.”
“It is intended that a space of four feet should be left between the
outside of the areas of the building now existing and the outer wall
of the one suggested. Neither the light, nor even the ventilation of
the rooms underground would be interfered with, at least not to such
an extent as to render it doubtful whether a slight inconvenience
possibly accruing to the use of cellars ought to outweigh the manifest
advantages which must evidently result to the readers and Library from
the adoption of the proposed scheme.”
“By the adoption of that scheme a Reading-Room would be provided
capable of containing upwards of 560 readers at one and the same time,
all comfortably seated. They might have at their free disposal 25,000
volumes of works of reference. The superintendence, which is now
peculiarly difficult (in consequence of which mutilations and thefts
have, of late, become not uncommon), would then be as easy and as
effective as possible. The space assigned to books will, on a moderate
calculation, afford room for 400,000 volumes. There will, moreover, be
ample accommodation for Officers, Assistants, Transcribers, and
Attendants, to carry on their various duties in a more comfortable as
well as more economical manner than is now the case. Requisite
conveniences would also be provided for frequenters of the
Reading-Room. The whole building is capable of being as well lighted,
ventilated, and warmed, as can possibly be wished.”
“Mr. Panizzi having but a very limited knowledge of practical
architecture, and of the cost of building, cannot take upon himself to
give an estimate of the expense. He would, however, be greatly
surprised if the building now suggested, completely fitted up, were to
cost more than £50,000.”[R]
-----
Footnote R:
It so happened that Mr. Charles Cannon, one of the Assistants in the
Library, knew how to draw a plan in the proper manner; Panizzi,
therefore, employed him to put the rough sketch into such a shape as
to be clearly understood by the Trustees. The plans were accordingly
drawn and laid before the Board without any assistance from outside
the Museum. Panizzi, in after time, used frequently to refer to this
and some similar services as of great advantage to him.
-----
A few weeks after, Panizzi wrote to Lord Rutherfurd:—
“May 27, 1852.
“I have submitted a plan of building in the Quadrangle to the
Trustees, which has taken with them all amazingly, and will, no doubt,
be executed, for even the architect is pleased with it. He will have
nothing on earth to do but carry into execution my ideas; he has not
been able to suggest one single improvement. He tried yesterday to
draw a plan somewhat different from mine, but he was obliged to admit
it was a failure, and will have to execute purely and simply my own
plan. I shall save the country many and many thousand pounds, and do
wonders for readers and library.”
And in December of the same year, he addressed a letter to Hallam, the
answer to which we give:—
“December 2, 1852.
“My dear Sir,
I have just received your valuable letter on the proposed
application to the Treasury for an addition to the building at the
Museum. Your plan appears to me the only one which will meet the
emergency, and also the only one which, on the score of expense, the
Government are at all likely to entertain. But as the Trustees have
already laid both this and the proposed building to the east before
the Treasury, they cannot avoid giving them the choice.
I much fear that it will not be possible for me to attend with the
rest of the deputation—that is, I am engaged at a distance from London
both next and the following week. I will do, however, all I can to be
present. But I do not suppose the Treasury will have time before the
adjournment of Parliament.
You have, I dare say, called on the Trustees forming the deputation. I
will, however, and as you permit me, transmit your letter to Mr.
Macaulay. I think that Mr. Goulburn is as likely to have weight as any
one, but I am sure you have been in communication with him.
I should not be surprised at the removal of Elgin and other marbles to
the new National Gallery, but, of course, that part of the Museum
could not be converted into a library without much inconvenience and
expense.
Yours, &c., &c.,
H. HALLAM.”
In June, 1852, there appeared in the _Quarterly Review_, an interesting
article on the British Museum, from the pen of no less a personage than
the Right Honourable Wilson Croker himself. On the face of this article
the writer shows himself a thorough advocate of the merits of the
Reading-Room then in existence. Denying the credibility, save in the
case of a few individuals of abnormally weak and susceptible brains, of
the traditional _Museum headache_, to which so many, and amongst them
Thomas Carlyle, had from personal experience, borne witness; he proceeds
to charge the room with the very defects on which the majority of its
frequenters were in the constant habit of dilating.
Amongst other works at the head of this article, is one entitled
_Observations on the British Museum, National Gallery and National
Record Office, with suggestions for their improvement, by James
Fergusson. London, 1849_.
In this work Mr. Fergusson, anticipating Panizzi’s purpose and choice of
site, proposed to construct in the inner quadrangle of the British
Museum, a Reading-Room about 175 feet by 105 feet. The writer of the
article gives Panizzi no credit for the soundness of his scheme, and its
adaptability to the requirements of the occasion, but attributes his
recommendations simply to his zeal for the efficiency of his Department,
and wonders how Mr. Smirke could have lent these ideas his professional
concurrence. With Mr. Fergusson’s project he disagrees as likely to
spoil the effect of the inner court, as touching _the grandeur and
impressiveness in its naked severity_; in this he assumes that there is
a peculiar merit in the eyes of those who have seen it, though it must
be granted that, to the few who had done so, this peculiar merit was not
so clearly visible. He proposes as an improvement to cover in the whole
court with a glass roof, after the fashion of the original Crystal
Palace of 1851, in Hyde Park, and to use the grand room thus obtained as
a receptacle for antiquities, sculpture, etc., with other details of
improvement, which, as they were never carried out, do not require to be
particularized in these pages.
This was, in fact, the scheme submitted in 1853 to the Trustees of the
British Museum by Sir Charles Barry. The report made by the Trustees
respecting this plan is, as may be supposed, too long to quote
_verbatim_, but is, substantially, as follows:—
That Sir C. Barry’s plan, so far as it related to increased
accommodation in the British Museum, was absolutely impracticable.
That it betrayed great ignorance of the wants of the Museum, and
indifference as to the safe-keeping of some of its most valuable
contents.
That the large skylight covering the 75,200 square feet of quadrangle
would darken every window therein, and, in many seasons, obscure the
whole space.
That the communications between Departments would be more inconvenient
than at present, and that the new Reading-Room, proposed by Sir C.
Barry, would be deficient in light, air, and accommodation, and be
attended by increased expense and delay in the procuring of books.
That the supervision of the Reading-Room would be less effective, and
risk of loss incurred.
That access to parts of the Library would have to be through the
Reading-Room; the Cataloguers would be separated by a great distance
from their books, and the Catalogues themselves suspended during the
progress of the works.
That the Exhibition of Prints and Drawings would be in like manner
affected; that no additional space is provided for printed books; and
that general displacement and confusion in this Department would be the
result of the scheme.
That Sir C. Barry’s statement—viz., that the space of only one year is
sufficient for the completion of the work is without foundation.
That the plan of removal of the greater objects of antiquity from their
present site to Sir C. Barry’s new hall would be attended with
extraordinary labour and expense, and that their position would be no
more conspicuous than before.
That mummies, metals, pottery, and objects having delicacy of colour
would run risk of injury.
That ventilation would be most difficult, and the approach to the area
highly objectionable.
Lastly, that the sudden fall of any large portion of the enormous glass
roof might destroy some most valuable object or objects of art.
Thus the Trustees dismissed the project of Sir C. Barry, and evinced an
inclination to cling to their own design, notwithstanding its rejection
by the Government.
It was not long, however, before they saw the expediency of adopting
Panizzi’s views; and in a letter to Lord Rutherfurd, the latter speaks
hopefully, first of his plan, and afterwards of his final anticipation
of the success of his scheme.
“B. M., May 16, 1854.
“... Lord Aberdeen and also Mr. Gladstone, but not Lord Lansdowne,
have been to look at the model, and both have agreed that the building
should be raised as proposed. The Trustees on Saturday were
unanimously of opinion that my suggestion was right, and have written
for the Treasury’s approbation, which, after what I mention just
before, will, no doubt, be given, and the thing done.”
The foundations of the New Reading-Room were commenced in May, and the
first brick was laid in September, 1854.
In a work of such a peculiar nature and vast importance, it would be
impossible to avoid the constant recurrence of obstacles and
difficulties; and a third letter from Panizzi to Lord Rutherfurd proves
conclusively that these were caused by circumstances quite unconnected
with the actual building operations. This we subjoin:—
“B. M., October 13th, 1854.
“... The building is going on tolerably. It will be used as a source
of great annoyance to me, particularly by our friend X——, who is here
for my sins. That building will cause yet to us all—I mean the
architect, builder, and myself—great anxiety and trouble; numberless
points are to be settled, and they are knotty ones. Then I have to
agree about it with some Trustees, who evidently have no clear
conception of what it is to be, and make suggestions and objections
which they would not make if they understood what that building is,
and how it will be when finished.”
As time progressed, it became necessary to encounter and settle the
question of internal decoration—a question, in all countries, of extreme
delicacy and taste, and, in our own climate, especially in the
atmosphere of London, most difficult of solution. The New Reading-Room
had no exterior, and those who have seen the interior in its present
finished state may readily imagine how bald and unsatisfactory an
appearance it would have presented had even a less lavish use been made
of paint and gilding in its ornamentation. From a letter of Mr. Smirke’s
to Panizzi it would appear that it required some effort to obtain for
the building the least amount of gilding necessary.
Here, moreover, the equally delicate question of money arose, for
Panizzi’s modest estimate of £50,000 had already been greatly exceeded
in the mere construction of the room, without any of its numerous and
much needed accessories.
That this was so, may be seen from Mr. Smirke’s. letter:—
“Leicester, October 29, 1856.
“My dear Sir,
... I shall not let the subject of gilding the dome drop without
an effort, and propose to submit it formally to the Trustees at their
next meeting. If four or five thousand pounds were spent in gilding
some of the mouldings of the dome an effect would be produced that
could hardly be imagined; it would _illuminate_, as it were, the whole
building, and beautify it without detracting from its simplicity and
grandeur.
The £100,000 which the building costs will have been entirely spent in
objects of utility; surely four or five thousand pounds will be a
small percentage on that sum for _ornament_. In what public building
in London has the ratio of ornament to utility been as four-and-a-half
to a hundred?
Yours, &c., &c.,
SYDNEY SMIRKE.”
Most happily the authorities entertained no parsimonious ideas in the
matter; and a letter from the Secretary to the Treasury (the Right
Honourable James Wilson) displays a liberal and enlightened view of the
necessity of combining in the new room beauty with utility, although his
opinions as regards the British Museum in general, may reasonably be
questioned.
This letter will also be read with interest; therefore, although
lengthy, no apology is needed for its insertion:—
“Treasury Chambers,
June 3, 1856.
“My dear Panizzi,
I have read your note of the 28th of May with much interest. I
have since sent you an official letter sanctioning the gilding of the
dome. That, however, need not be considered to preclude the
consideration of the painting of the ceiling, should the Trustees be
disposed to entertain it. As the matter appears to me it is thus:—The
British Museum is certainly the best public building we have of modern
times, and is one of the few things we have to be proud of. The
Reading Hall will be one of the finest rooms and the Dome one of the
grandest structures of its kind, not to say in England, but, so far as
I know, in Europe. These circumstances certainly point to the strong
motive we should have to complete it in the best style of which it is
capable. Adverting to the fact that the whole of the sides of that
enormous circle will be fitted up with dense rows of books, with a
mass of gilded and varied coloured backs, a plain white ceiling would
be tame and cold in the extreme, and I think the choice must lie
between rich gilding, or less gilding and painting. Against the latter
I think the plan of the interior of the dome is a serious drawback,
because, being fitted in compartments, any grand subject to spread
over the whole of the dome is impossible, and if painting is resorted
to at all, it will obviously be necessary to confine it to some mode
of filling the panels only, and which, _moreover_, excepting the
ovals, are of a bad shape; for I think it is obvious that any style
that may be adopted should be rich, grave, and even severe, looking to
the purpose for which the building is intended.
* * * * *
However, it will remain for the Trustees, if they think right, to
consider this subject deliberately after they may be in possession of
any information or advice which they think proper to seek. Expressing
only my own private views at this stage, I should on public grounds
think that it would be well worth consideration, in order to perfect
so grand a work, whether an additional sum of money should not be
expended, thrown over two or three years, if a great and decided
effect can be attained by painting in place of gilding.
Yours, &c., &c.,
JAMES WILSON.”
Notwithstanding the suggestions alluded to in this letter, to the great
credit of the architect’s taste and judgment, the Dome was “fitted in
compartments,” and no opportunity was given for “any grand subject to
spread over the whole of the Dome.” Had this project been seriously
entertained, it is assuredly more than doubtful whether an artist could
have been found of sufficient capacity to undertake it with any
probability of success.
There is no doubt whatever that the surface of the Dome, arranged and
coloured as it fortunately has been, presents a far better effect than
it would have done had it been surrendered to any such decoration as a
grand subject painting extending over the whole of it.
But _à propos_ of decoration, Panizzi’s letter, written just one year
before, and addressed to a Trustee of the British Museum, Mr. W. R.
Hamilton, will also testify to his judgment and taste in architecture:—
“B. M., June 11, 1855.
“My dear Sir,
I had no idea that my objections to showing the ribs in the
interior of the cupola, and to the form of the windows in it, would
ever have become the subject of discussion. I stated these objections
to Mr. Smirke and Mr. Fielder, and as the former was responsible, he
was perfectly right in persisting in his views if he thought me wrong;
and had that been done privately, I should have allowed the matter to
pass in silence. But as my objections have been formally canvassed and
summarily dismissed—as I am likely to get more blame for the new
building than I am fairly entitled to, and as I believe my objections
to have more in them than others allow. I think it right to put on
record these objections, being firmly convinced that the time will
come when the not having given them more consideration will be a
source of regret. If I write to you, instead of making a report to the
Trustees, it is because I do not want to say officially more than I
did on Saturday last to the Board, because Mr. Smirke appealed to you
originally as a friend, and because your unwearied kindness to me,
makes me confident that you will, on the same ground, forgive my
relieving my mind to you by repeating my objections.
1st.—As to the cupola: I object to its showing the ribs on which it
rests. I say that this is unprecedented, that it will have a bad
effect, that it renders it impossible ever to ornament it, and that
the oval frames which are introduced about half way, in the spaces
between the ribs are meaningless, not in keeping with the building.
Far from showing how they are constructed, it is their being as if it
were suspended in the air that gives the cupolas their grace, and
renders them striking objects. From them comes the light as from the
sky, of which they represent the form as much as it is possible for
mortals to imitate nature.
To show the ribs in a cupola is the same as if we were to show in
their nakedness the beams and girders supporting a floor or a roof.
It is an utter mistake to say that the ribs (_costoloni_) of St.
Peter’s are seen in the great temple itself. The cupola which is seen
inside is a second cupola, quite smooth, built on purpose to conceal
the supports and ribs of the outer cupola, and these are seen only by
persons who go to the top of that superb building, ascending between
the two cupolas, the outer and inner one.
2nd.—As to the windows: Has any one ever seen such windows in a
building, the whole character and style of which is so totally
different from them in character and style? What will the effect be
after having passed through the magnificent entrance of the Museum, to
enter a room lighted not only by arched windows, but by windows with
such ornaments in their upper portion, and then divided lengthways by
a slender upright into two very narrow and very long arches, the
proportions and frame of which are so peculiar, and so much at
variance with everything else in the whole Museum? All the doors in
the very room which is to be lighted by those windows are of simple
and rectangular form. Will not this discordance produce a most
disagreeable effect?
I feel, perhaps, too strongly on the subject, and I most sincerely
wish I may be mistaken, but I cannot, fearing strongly that this
building, which I cherished the hope would prove as handsome as it
will be useful, will thus be rendered subject to animadversion. I
write under this conviction—under this conviction I spoke last
Saturday to the Trustees. I shall claim no merit on the success; I
must disclaim the responsibility of failure on these two points.
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”
Although, during the progress of the building, Panizzi had frequent
occasion to complain of the short-comings of the workmen employed
thereon, yet, the new Reading-Room was entirely finished by the end of
April, 1857, in the laudably short space of less than three years. Much
credit was due to the great energy of the contractor, Mr. Fielder, for
whom Panizzi entertained the highest esteem, and who was untiring in his
earnest endeavours in carrying out the plans of the architect; and on
the 2nd of May in the same year, the building was duly opened, a grand
breakfast being given at the British Museum in honour of the occasion:
to this the Prince Consort had been invited by Panizzi, and had accepted
the invitation, but was prevented from attending by an unforeseen
occurrence.
The following letter accounts for His Royal Highness’s absence from the
ceremony:—
“Piccadilly,
April 30th, 1857.
“My dear Sir,
As the death of H.R.H. the Duchess of Gloucester will inevitably
prevent H.R.H. Prince Albert’s attending at the opening of the Reading
Room on Saturday next, you will oblige me by stating whether or not
the ceremony will still take place or be postponed to a future day.
Yours faithfully,
CADOGAN.”
A. Panizzi, Esq.
The postponement of the opening of the Room was, however, simply
impossible, and amongst other notabilities present were the following:—
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Sumner), Earl and Countess of Clarendon,
Earl Cawdor, Earl of Aberdeen, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir
Charles and Lady Eastlake, Lady Cranworth, Baron Marochetti, the Dean of
St. Paul’s and Mrs. Milman, Professor Owen, Lord Panmure, Lord and Lady
John Russell, Sir George and Lady Grey, Earl Spencer, the Bishop of
London and Mrs. Tait, and the Duke of Somerset.
All the officers were also present, with the exception of Sir Frederick
Madden (Keeper of the MSS.), but Mr. E. A. Bond, then Assistant-Keeper,
represented him. One of the letters replying to Panizzi’s invitation to
this breakfast may be given here, to show the estimate formed by one
whose judgment may safely be respected, of the Librarian’s own share in
the building of the new Reading-Room:—
“24, Bedford Square,
21st April, 1857.
“Dear Panizzi,
I shall have very great pleasure in witnessing the Inauguration
of the New Reading-Room, not only as an observance marking an epoch in
the advance of the Museum, but as tending by new allurements of
splendor and convenience to increase the resort of every class of
society to it, as well for study as for investigations.
Without lessening the merits of Mr. Smirke and Mr. Fielder in carrying
out its plans, the contriver and real architect throughout has been
Antonio Panizzi.
Your exertions have brought increased prosperity to the greatest of
our Institutions.
Yours ever sincerely,
HENRY ELLIS.”
Another letter, by the same hand, bears testimony to the success of the
entertainment itself:—
“24, Bedford Square,
4th May, 1857.
“Dear Panizzi,
I must not resist the pleasure I feel in expressing to you my
congratulations on the successful opening of our new Reading-Room, on
Saturday, although H.R.H. Prince Albert, contrary to his own
intention, was prevented by the Duchess of Gloucester’s demise, from
honouring it with his presence.
You see I still venture to say _our_ Reading-Room, for although
officially defunct, my heart and mind remain attached to the welfare
of the place, and with it a fancied identity still hovering over me,
and I must say not a little encouraged by the prosperity and
increasing magnificence of the place I have so long loved.
Everybody who came on Saturday was delighted with your kind reception,
and nothing could be a more complete adaptation to the circuit which
surrounded it than your entertainment, alike conspicuous for the
abundance, and the refined taste in the selection and preparation of
its viands.
The ladies, I can assure you, were not a little pleased with the
compliment of the bouquets. The only regret I felt myself was in the
consideration of the fatigue you must have undergone in your own
exertions to prepare for making so choice a company as you assembled,
so completely pleased and happy, not omitting your toil also in the
reception; but in both points I am quite sure you were thoroughly
successful.
Accept my own thanks for your kindness to me personally on this
eventful occasion, and with my best wishes that you may long live to
continue your exertions for the benefit of the Museum, and that you
may be backed by the liberality of successive Chancellors of the
Exchequer, such as Sir George Cornewall Lewis.
Yours, &c., &c.
HENRY ELLIS.”
The reply to this conveys a graceful tribute to Sir Henry Ellis’s own
deserts:—
“B. M., May 4th, 1857.
“My dear Sir Henry,
I assure you that I cannot find words to express adequately the
feelings with which I perused your most kind letter; believe me,
although I shall not say much, I feel deeply your kindness.
This great institution which has grown under your eyes, and increased
from small beginnings to its present magnitude by your _paternal_ care
and unremitting exertions for the space of 56 years, must always
occupy a high place in your heart. I can only express the hope that I
may not attempt in vain to follow your footsteps in the responsible
situation which I fill, and that the comparison may not be so much to
my disadvantage, when in future times the results of your
administration are compared with mine.
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”
Whatever may have been Panizzi’s claim to be considered the “Architect,”
as well as the originator of the design for the New Reading-Room, his
reputation for having performed so great a service was not altogether
unassailed. On the completion of his important work, a vigorous attack,
more formidable perhaps in appearance than in reality, was directed from
a somewhat unexpected quarter against both the originality of the plan
and the _bonâ fides_ of the author. _Hæc feci monimenta meum tulit alter
honorem, sic vos non vobis, etc._ Such were the words of William
Hosking, Professor of Architecture, King’s College, London.
This gentleman had, some years before, prepared a design for additional
buildings to the British Museum, and these he proposed to place in the
quadrangle, on the site afterwards fixed on by Panizzi for his
Reading-Room. In 1848 Mr. Hosking submitted his plan to Lord Ellesmere’s
Museum Commission, and afterwards, in 1849, to the Trustees.
Great though its merits may have been, it unfortunately met with
approbation from neither. Mr. Hosking now made a charge against Panizzi
of having pirated not only his choice of the position, but also the form
of the building, which he alleges has been colourably altered so as to
pass for Panizzi’s own.
The earlier design appeared in the _Builder_ of June 22nd, 1850. We
mention this in order that the reader may have an opportunity of
comparing it with the latter and judge for himself as to which possesses
the greater merit and originality.
Mr. Hosking’s building, it must in justice be allowed, would have been
of itself extremely ornamental, and, with equal justice, it may be said
would have been considerably less useful than ornamental. Although the
superiority of past ages has reduced the art of the present day to
imitation, combined, in comparatively rare cases, with happy adaptation,
it is, nevertheless, doubtful how far any architect who should make an
actual copy of so well-known a building as the Pantheon at Rome, and set
it up in one of the most conspicuous positions in London, would be
justified in so doing, or would merit popular approbation, even though
he acted with the same “bonâ fides” as Mr. Hosking.
Not to enter, however, on this higher question, it is obvious that there
were valid reasons why the Trustees should have rejected this scheme.
They may be excused for not, at first sight, perceiving the necessity or
utility of raising no less a structure than the dome of the Pantheon
over a portion of the statuary of the British Museum. Another project in
Mr. Hosking’s plan (not mentioned in the extract from the _Builder_),
whereby he proposed to cut off a portion of the King’s Library for a new
Reading-Room, was scarcely worthy of second consideration.
On the completion of Panizzi’s work Mr. Hosking, probably wroth at his
own ill success, and aggrieved at the favour lavished on the other,
proceeded to open his attack on the alleged pirate, firing his first
shot direct at that individual:—
“Athenæum,
30th April, 1857.
“Sir,
As the credit of suggesting the site and originating the work
recently built in the quadrangular court of the British Museum is
popularly assigned to you, whilst I claim to have devised and made
known the scheme in the first instance, I hope you will hold me
excused for asking you to be so good as to give me the means of
placing the matter rightly before the public by informing me whether
the project to the same effect which I laid before Lord Ellesmere’s
Commission in 1848, and communicated to the Trustees of the Museum in
1849, had been seen by you before you devised the present work.
My plan, with an abstract of the description which accompanied it,
was, after the drawing which presented it came back from the Trustees,
published in the _Builder_, as you know; for I sent you a copy of the
print, and that was two years before the scheme lately carried out was
made known to the public.
I am, yours, &c.,
WILLIAM HOSKING.”
To this Panizzi lost no time in replying:—
“British Museum,
May 1st, 1857.
“Sir,
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday’s
date requesting me to inform you whether a certain project of yours of
building in the inner quadrangle of the Museum, and which, as you
state, you laid before Lord Ellesmere’s Commission in 1848, and
communicated to the Trustees in 1849 (as I have just now ascertained
for the first time) had been seen by me before I designed the present
work, that is the Reading-Room and Libraries recently built on that
site.
I beg in answer to state that I had never seen your project or the
scheme to which you allude before I suggested the work which is now
completed.
I saw, when published, in the _Builder_, a separately printed copy of
it which was sent to me, I suppose by you, without any accompanying
note or letter, long after the works for carrying out my suggestion
had been commenced.
The concluding part of your letter must mean, of course, that that
publication took place two years before the scheme lately carried out
had been made known, _not_ that you sent me the copy of your plan two
years before my suggestion had been made known to the public. It is
desirable that there should be no ambiguity on this point.
Permit me to add that the schemes for covering over, or building in
the quadrangle were numberless. My colleague, Mr. Hawkins, had often
suggested, long before 1850 a communication by corridors across the
quadrangle, from the front entrance to the several departments, with a
central building for the Trustees’ Meeting-Room and officers standing
round it.
You suggested a great Central Hall with one floor of 120 feet in
diameter, two inscribing octagonal corridors presenting niches to
receive statues, and extensive wall surface fit to receive reliefs and
inscriptions with connecting galleries, etc.
The Hall was intended by you for the exhibition of the finer and more
important works of sculpture, besides a quadrilateral hall to contain
ample staircases, etc.
I, on the other hand, have suggested and have seen built a circular
Reading-Room, 140 feet in diameter, with amazing shelf room for books
of a totally novel construction. No central hall, no quadrilateral
hall nor ample staircases, no space, niches, or wall-surface for the
exhibition of works of sculpture, statues, or inscriptions as you
suggested. How your scheme can be designated as being to the same
effect as mine, and how, had I seen it, it can take the merit of
originality from mine, others will say.
Yours was the scheme of an architect; thick walls, ample staircases,
etc. Mine the humble suggestion of a Librarian, who wanted to find, at
a small cost of time, space, and money, ample room for books and
comfortable accommodation for readers, neither of which purposes you
contemplated.
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”
William Hosking, Esq.
Mr. Hosking also attempted to extract information as to the alleged
piracy from the architect of the new Reading-Room.
“Athenæum, 30th April, 1857
“My dear Sir,
Will you be so kind as to tell me whether you ever saw the
drawing, or any copy of it, of my project for building a modified copy
of the Pantheon at Rome within the enclosed quadrangle of the British
Museum, _before_ the scheme of the analogous work recently executed
under your directions at the same place, and attributed to Mr.
Panizzi, was communicated to you?
Yours &c., &c.,
WILLIAM HOSKING.”
To Sydney Smirke, Esq.
How much success Mr. Hosking attained in this attempt will be seen on a
perusal of Mr. Smirke’s answer:—
“May 2, 1857.
“Dear Sir,
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday. I
recollect seeing your plans, or rather I had a glance over them at a
meeting of the Trustees, shortly after you sent them.
When, long subsequently, Mr. Panizzi showed me his sketch for a plan
of a New Reading-Room, I confess it did not remind me of yours, the
purposes of the two plans and the treatment and construction
altogether were so different.
The idea of building over the quadrangle is of very early date, it was
certainly mooted in the Museum fifteen years ago.
Yours, &c., &c.,
SYDNEY SMIRKE.
It may as well be mentioned in this place, that as Panizzi in his letter
already quoted, disclaims originality in choosing the position of his
New Room, so Mr. Hosking, in a subsequent letter, dated 4th of May,
1857, to Mr. Smirke, admits that “It is quite 15 years since Mr. Hawkins
proposed to build corridors across it (the quadrangle) to facilitate
intercommunication.” Neither of the opposing parties, however, takes
note of the fact that, as early as 1836-7, Mr. Thomas Watts, the late
Keeper of the Department of Printed Books in the British Museum, had
actually suggested the construction of a Reading-Room in the very spot
of Panizzi’s selection.
He had written in the _Mechanics Magazine_ for March 11th, 1837,
commenting upon the waste of space occasioned by the empty quadrangle,
“A Reading-Room, of ample dimensions, might have stood in the centre,
and been surrounded on all four sides by galleries for the books,
communicating with each other and lighted from the top.” A little
further on, however, he half retracts his own suggestion, remarking, “So
much has been expended on the great quadrangle, that it might seem
barbarous to propose filling up the square, as ought to have been
originally done.” The grand conception of the cupola, by which
architectural effect was to be taken away only to be restored with
interest, had not dawned upon him; and, in fact, the reverence expressed
by so many for the architecture of the inner court would have been more
intelligible, if the court had been more accessible.
As regards originality, therefore, in this portion of the respective
designs there can be no possible ground of discussion.
Still Mr. Hosking could not be convinced that, in other points, his
design was not feloniously used and himself consequently wronged by
Panizzi, and so published a long pamphlet dwelling, amongst other
things, on the alleged fact that the latter must have seen the copy of
the _Builder_ which he sent to him in May, 1852.
To this allegation Panizzi gave a categorical denial; but a short
statement, dated May 18th, 1858, in answer to the longer pamphlet, will
show sufficiently for our present purpose the line of attack adopted by
his opponent, and his own method of defence.
_Remarks on Mr. Hosking’s Claims to the Design of the British Museum
New Building._
1st.—Mr. Hosking having suggested “a modified copy of the Pantheon,” a
massive building for the exhibition of sculpture, with no
accommodation for readers or books, now claims the merit of the
structure which I suggested, and which has been built, was intended,
and is used, solely, for readers and for books. His scheme included
quadrilateral halls, central halls, ample staircases, corridors, &c.,
all of the usual materials; the building which I suggested and have
seen carried out, is original in plan, use of materials, arrangement,
and construction. Mr. Hosking says that it is not the plan of the
Pantheon that he claims, “but the application of its form,
disposition, and proportions;” and the plagiarism he alleges, is the
application of such his device, with certain of his combinations,
contrary to honour and good faith, not only on my part, but also on
that of the Trustees. It will be obvious to any one who will inspect
the building, that neither the form, nor the disposition, nor the
proportions of the Pantheon, have been adopted in the new building at
the Museum. There is no resemblance whatever between the architectural
features of the two schemes. Mr. Hosking proposed a reduced
Pantheon,—a cupola 120 feet in height, and the same in diameter. The
cupola of the Reading-Room is 140 feet in diameter, and 106 feet in
height. Are these two conceptions alike?
2nd.—Mr. Hosking says that I am a “pirate,” having taken from his
scheme my suggestions for building the Reading-Room and surrounding
Libraries; which suggestions I made on the 5th of May, 1852. Instead
of using hard words and dealing in generalities, it would be better
that Mr. Hosking should declare specifically which of his suggestions
have been adopted in the new building. I affirm none, not even the
most trifling. Indeed such an appropriation was impossible, as I am
going to prove. Mr. Hosking states that, on the 14th of June, 1852, he
sent me a copy of that portion of the _Builder_, dated June 22, 1850,
in which his scheme of building was set forth. I distinctly aver that
I did not receive that portion of the _Builder_ on the 14th of June,
1852, nor in any part of 1852 or 1853, and that I never knew of Mr.
Hosking’s plan till the latter part of 1854, when I did see, for the
first time, the extract from the _Builder_ of the 22nd of June, 1850.
3rd.—Long after the works for the new building were begun, I found in
my study at the British Museum (not at my private residence), a paper
merely addressed to me, in which was carelessly wrapped up a copy of
what professed to be an extract from that number of the _Builder_. I
showed it at once to Mr. Jones and to Mr. Fielder, as a document just
received, and wondering whence it came. I learned then, for the first
time, from Mr. Fielder, who Mr. Hosking was.[S] The moment I received
Mr. Hosking’s letter of the 30th of April, 1857, informing me that the
extract from the _Builder_ had been sent by him, I showed it to both
those gentlemen, who recollected, immediately, my having shown them
that extract, as I have just stated. The works for the new building
were begun late in March, 1854, the contract was made some time after:
I became acquainted with Mr. Fielder after the contract was made.
4th.—Mr. Hosking admits that I could not have received his paper in
May, 1852, when I put forward my “first design,” but is positive that
I had received it when I put forward “the other, early in 1854.” My
answer is, that I never put forward any design whatever after May,
1852. I have freely made suggestions to Mr. Smirke; he has most
unreservedly consulted me from May, 1852, to the present day; but I
have never made any other design than that shown by the two plans of
May, 1852, accompanying my report of the 5th of that month, and
printed by order of the House of Commons on the 30th of that same
month.
5th.—Mr. Hosking asserts that if the cupola rested merely on its iron
supports (which it does, in fact, as any one may see) it would tumble
down; and, as if to show that he has not the most distant conception
of what the Museum Reading-Room ought to be, he actually proposes that
the King’s Library should be used as such.
6th.—If the new Reading-Room and Libraries at the British Museum have
any merit, they have, by universal consent, that of being in every way
adapted to their respective purposes. The fittings, the tables, the
warming, the lighting, the peculiar system of ventilation applied, the
multifarious, minute arrangements adopted in order to economise space
and for the accommodation and comfort of readers, as well as for the
ready access to books, are certainly not less important than the
building of which they form an integral and vital part, but upon none
of which has Mr. Hosking put forth his views. His suggestion of
placing works of art in a room 120 feet in diameter, lighted from the
top of a dome at a height of 120 feet, speaks for itself.
7th.—On the publication of my plans by order of the House of Commons,
in June, 1852, they were much canvassed in the public press, and
severely animadverted upon in the _Quarterly Review_. The possibility
of their success was long denied, and Mr. Hosking was silent. That
success is now established, and Mr. Hosking claims the merit as his
own.
A. PANIZZI.
B. M., May 18, 1858.
-----
Footnote S:
The name of Mr. Hosking occurs repeatedly in the printed document here
referred to as that of the author of the plan therein put forth.
-----
Previously to the issue of this statement, Panizzi had asked for, and
obtained, from the architect his opinion on the dissimilarity between
the two plans.
“Grosvenor Street,
April 8th, 1858.
“Dear Sir,
I feel no hesitation in complying with your request, and stating
that the idea of a circular Reading-Room with surrounding Library, and
with the divisions formed wholly of book-cases, was perfectly original
and entirely your own, and totally unlike the solid masonic structure
devised by Mr. Hosking for the exhibition of sculpture. The two plans
neither did, nor do, strike me as having any resemblance to each
other, and that is what I meant to express in my note of last July.
The architectural features of the present dome I am answerable for,
not you, and it is obviously as unlike the Pantheon as any two domes
can be. It was Michael Angelo’s cupola of St. Peter which suggested
the present lines of yours.
Yours, &c., &c.,
SYDNEY SMIRKE.
Neither Panizzi nor Hosking lacked supporters amongst the numerous
critics and judges who, as a matter of course, came forward on such
an occasion; and a war, supported by newspapers on either side, was
vigorously carried on for upwards of a year. Into the details of the
controversy it would be tedious and irrelevant to enter; but whoever
will undertake impartially to peruse the records of it (many of
which are still extant), will have neither doubt nor difficulty in
ascribing the victory to Panizzi.
But as “there is a river in Macedon and there is, moreover, a river
at Monmouth,” so it must be admitted that there were, at least,
three sterling points of resemblance between the two designs. They
are as follows:—1st. That for each was chosen the same plot of
ground, but that the merit of originality in such choice belongs to
neither designer. 2nd. That both buildings had domes, but these
domes so dissimilar that comparison is out of the question. 3rd (and
here lay the most striking point of resemblance), That in design,
purpose, execution, proportion, and every other detail, Panizzi’s
building differs “toto cœlo” from the structure devised by
Hosking.
The whole story gives occasion for melancholy reflection on the
common and vulgar fortune of so many great men, whose claims to
invention or discovery are constantly challenged by those of whose
existence they never heard until their own works were perfected.
There is reason to believe that the claimants to the invention of
the Archimedean screw, are almost equal in number to those who have
suggested building in the inner quadrangle of the British Museum.
The following is a description of the room:—
“The Reading-Room is circular. The entire building does not occupy
the whole quadrangle, there being a clear interval of from 27 to 30
feet all round, to give light and air to the surrounding buildings,
and as a guard against possible destruction by fire from the outer
parts of the Museum. The dome of this Reading-Room is 140 feet in
diameter, its height being 106 feet. In this dimension of diameter
it is only inferior to the Pantheon of Rome by 2 feet; St. Peters
being only 139; Sta. Maria in Florence, 139; the tomb of Mahomet,
Bejapore, 135; St. Paul’s, 112; St. Sophia, Constantinople, 107; and
the Church at Darmstadt, 105. The new Reading-Room contains
1,250,000 cubic feet of space; its ‘suburbs,’ or surrounding
Libraries, 750,000. The building is constructed principally of iron,
with brick arches between the main ribs, supported by 20 iron piers,
having a sectional area of 10 superficial feet to each, including
the brick casing, or 200 feet in all. This saving of space by the
use of iron is remarkable, the piers of support on which our dome
rests only thus occupying 200 feet, whereas the piers of the
Pantheon of Rome fill 7,477 feet of area, and those of the tomb of
Mahomet, 5,593. Upwards of 2,000 tons of iron have been employed in
the construction. The weight of the materials used in the dome is
about 4,200 tons viz., upwards of 200 tons on each pier.”
It may be considered that we are open to the impeachment of
plagiarism, greater even than could be ascribed to Panizzi, inasmuch
as we have taken our statistics from a penny book—that most accurate
one sold at the Museum at this very moderate price—and having
borrowed from this valuable little publication, we can but claim as
our excuse the worth of its contents, and the consideration of those
readers into whose hands the small publication may never have
fallen.
A domed building possessing beauty of appearance is by no means easy
of construction, and some of the most celebrated in the world are
conspicuously deficient in grace and elegance, especially as regards
the exterior.
Fortunately it has fallen to the lot of the new Reading-Room to be
concerned only with the most manageable side of its dome—viz., the
inside.
By this, as will be universally allowed, criticism is disarmed. The
proportions of the room are admirable, and the lines of architecture
full of grace and beauty. The lighting is based on the most
scientific principles, and the dome itself (only inferior in
dimensions to one other in existence) maintains its own appearance
as to actual size, and is of grandeur proportionate to its general
lightness and elegance.
The spectator will, however, be most struck with its style of
internal decoration, a grand example of success, when our attempts
have hitherto been so futile.
The fear of tampering with colour has ever been one of our
idiosyncrasies, and it may be observed in this instance.
True, that in our uncertain climate and obscure atmosphere, Nature
herself lends but little aid in the matter, either as regards
instruction or example; but the colouring of the Reading-Room may be
pronounced free from indifference or conventionality, and to the
freedom observable is added a boldness and originality which must be
seen to be truly estimated at its proper value.
To give the reader, however, some general notion of the manner in
which the colouring has been managed, we quote, without apology, one
more passage from the small _brochure_ to which we have alluded:—
“In the decoration of the interior dome, light colours and the
purest gilding have been preferred. The Great Room, therefore, has
an illuminated and elegant aspect. The decorative work may be
shortly described:—The inner surface of the dome is divided into
twenty compartments by moulded ribs, which are gilded with leaf
prepared from unalloyed gold, the soffites being in ornamental
patterns, and the edges touching the adjoining margins fringed with
a leaf-pattern scolloped edge. Each compartment contains a
circular-headed window, twenty-seven feet high and twelve feet wide,
with three panels above, the central one being medallion-shaped, the
whole bordered with gilt mouldings and lines, and the field of the
panels finished in encaustic azure blue, the surrounding margins
being of a warm cream colour. The details of the windows are treated
in like manner—the spandril panels blue; the enriched column and
pilaster caps, the central flowers, the border moulding and lines
being gilded—the margins cream colour throughout. The moulded rim of
the lantern light, which is painted and gilded to correspond, is 40
feet in diameter. The sash is formed of gilt moulded ribs, radiating
from a central medallion, in which the Royal Monogram is alternated
with the Imperial Crown.
“The cornice, from which the dome springs, is massive and almost
wholly gilded, the frieze being formed into panels bounded by lines
terminating at the ends with a gilt fret ornament. Each compartment
of the dome is marked by a bold enriched gilt console, which forms
at once the support of the main rib and the base for a colossal
marble statue, a series of which it is proposed to place on the
cornice.
“Between the cornice and the floor the space is filled with the
bookcases and galleries of access, the cornice, standards, and
railings of which are wholly gilded, the panels of the soffites of
the latter being blue, having gilded ornaments therein.”
It will have been observed that the original draft of Panizzi’s
scheme proposed to provide space for a larger number of readers than
was ultimately found advisable. The problem of accommodating readers
was, indeed, less momentous than that of accommodating books; and
any account of Panizzi’s edifice would be most imperfect which did
not take some notice of his solution of this latter difficulty. As
already stated, the space in which the new Reading-Room was to be
erected was quadrangular, while the room itself was to be circular.
The quadrangle is 335 feet by 235; the diameter of the dome of the
Reading-Room, as ultimately constructed, was 140 feet. The circle
thus inscribed in the quadrangle left, consequently, ample space for
the construction of additional rooms. After deducting a clear space
of from 27 to 30 feet left, for the sake of air and light, between
the exterior of the new building and the inner wall of the original
Museum, the former was still 258 feet by 184, equivalent to an area
of 47,472 square feet. The amount of this space external to the
Reading-Room (about three-eighths of the whole) was occupied:—1. By
a circular gallery in four tiers, including the basement storey,
carried entirely round the Reading-Room. 2. By four corridors in
three tiers, each forming a quadrangle parallel with the interior
walls of the original Museum structure. 3. By four apartments of
triangular shape, filling up the spaces left vacant between the
circle and the quadrangle in which it was inscribed. Accommodation
was thus provided for about 1,200,000 books, or five times as many
as the Museum had possessed when Panizzi became Keeper. This result
was obtained by great economy of space, there being no walls except
the exterior wall, the partitions being formed by the books
themselves arranged fore-edge to fore-edge, except against the
external wall, the shelves of double bookcases being divided
longitudinally by a wire lattice. These shelves are placed between
grooved uprights of galvanized iron, and upon metal pins inserted
into holes made for the purpose in the wooden lining of the grooves.
Sufficient space is left between these rows of bookcases to admit of
the passage of two barrows, and the entire remaining space is
available for the storage of books. The roof is glass, and the
flooring of the galleries is formed of open iron gratings to allow
of the transmission of light to the basement. The presses are
everywhere of the same dimensions, eight feet by three, so that each
gallery is eight feet high. The shelves are made of zinc covered
with leather, the multiplicity of perforations in the wooden lining
of the uprights allowing of their being placed apart at any interval
required, and, thanks to Mr. Watts’s elastic system of numbering the
presses, the books destined to occupy them were removed from their
previous locality without the alteration of a single press mark.
They consisted, for the most part, of acquisitions made since 1845,
the date when Panizzi’s quoted report on the deficiencies of the
Library was laid before the House of Commons. The ground floor of
the Reading-Room was occupied by 20,000 volumes especially selected
to serve as a Reference Library. These were partly chosen, and the
whole were admirably catalogued by Mr. Rye, then Second
Assistant-Keeper, who also drew the coloured ground plan of the
Reading-Room, and superintended the placing of the volumes. Several
picked Assistants worked extra time under him for many days, and the
task was only completed just in time for the opening of the room.
The galleries were filled with periodicals, and all the books above
and below were bound, or, at least, gilt and furbished, with an
especial view to decorative effect.
It only remained to provide for the management of the Room by the
appointment of Mr. Watts as Superintendent. “The readers,” wrote Mr.
Winter Jones in 1859, “have thus placed at their disposal, for six
hours every day, the services of a gentleman whose intimate
acquaintance with the Museum collections, extensive knowledge of the
literature of his own and foreign countries, and acquirements as a
linguist rarely to be met with, render him peculiarly fitted to
carry out the chief object of the Trustees.”
This description, which has already been drawn out to a length
rather exceeding our original intentions, but which the interest of
the subject somewhat justifies, may appropriately be concluded with
a notice of the last ornaments added to the Reading-Room:—
Here is a bust of Panizzi, by Baron Marochetti, placed over the
principal entrance; an admirable likeness, but, whatever its merits,
the position in which it was to have been placed met at the time
with strenuous opposition on the ground of convenience even from
Panizzi himself.
“B. M., May 14th, 1856.
“My dear Sir Henry,
I had the curiosity to go and see where it was proposed to
place my bust, I need not say that the condescension of the
Trustees in permitting it to be exhibited anywhere is as
gratifying to me as the mark of regard which prompted my
fellow-labourers in the Printed-Book Department to subscribe for
that work; I am, therefore, much flattered by the suggestion of
the Building Committee, but my personal feelings and gratification
ought not to prevail over the public convenience, and on this
ground I earnestly beg of them to reconsider that suggestion.
I confess I am astonished at Mr. Smirke not objecting to the
proposed site; he well knows that the corridor leading from the
hall to the New Reading-Room _is not too wide as it is_, were it
possible it ought to be wider—he knows that he is obliged, and has
agreed with me to make two recesses or niches, one on each side,
in which attendants may sit in that corridor, out of the way of
the readers going to and from; lastly, he knows that that is the
only place in the Library open to the public, to the walls of
which can be affixed large maps, on rollers for ready use; the
only objection to this scheme being the narrowness of the
corridor, and knowing all this he leaves it to me to point out the
inconvenience of leaving such an useless obstruction as my bust
placed there.
I again say that the public convenience and utility imperatively
require both the walls of the corridor to be reserved for public
use, and the thoroughfare to the Reading-Room to be kept quite
clear.
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”
Sir Henry Ellis, &c., &c.
It is evident that the ultimate destination of the bust had not been
fixed upon up to the 7th of March, when Mr. Smirke addressed the
following letter to Panizzi:—
“In the public corridor leading to the New Reading-Room will be a
wide, handsome folding door, over this, there is a piece of blank
wall which will form the termination of the vista on approaching
the Great Room; I want to put some object there that the eye might
dwell on with pleasure as you advance along the corridor. What do
you think of a circular niche over the door with a _Bust of the
Queen in it_? Minerva’s head might do—but the Queen’s would be
more in accordance with the _spirit of the times_!”
A curious incident, with happier details than the great cause of
Hosking _v._ Panizzi, must not be omitted from the history of the
New Reading-Room. It will be remembered that, in 1823, the Duke of
Modena had executed a well known effigy of Panizzi; and it happened,
in after years, that this so-styled “Duchino” potentate’s friend and
ally, Austria (who would fain have dealt with the great Carbonaro in
a more effective manner), struck with honest admiration of his
genius, as displayed in the New Reading-Room, after failing to
obtain actual possession of his head, judged it expedient to take
what advantage she could of that head’s cerebral development.
Accordingly, on the completion of Panizzi’s work, she instructed her
Ambassador in this country (Count Apponyi) to apply for information
as to the plans, construction, &c., &c., of the New Room in the
British Museum, with a view to adapting them to the projected New
Library of the University of Vienna. The following correspondence
contains an even more valuable tribute to Panizzi’s reputation than
the honour already paid to him by his adopted country:—
“Londres, le 9 Juin, 1857.
“Monsieur le Comte,
L’admiration universelle qu’a excité la construction et
l’organisation de la nouvelle salle de lecture du Musée
Britannique à Londres a fait naître au Ministère de l’Instruction
Publique en Autriche le désir de connaître plus à fond tout ce qui
se rapporte à l’établissement de cette salle dans le bût d’en
tirer avantage pour la bibliothèque de l’Université de Vienne qui
va être nouvellement construite.
J’ai été en conséquence chargé, M. le Comte, d’avoir recours à
l’obligeante intervention de V. E., à l’effet d’obtenir, de la
manière la plus détaillée qu’il sera possible, les plans, et
descriptions relativement à la construction et aux arrangements
intérieurs de la dite salle, dont la perfection est digne de
servir de modèle à tous les établissements de ce genre.
J’espère qu’en vue du but que se propose le Gouvernement Impérial,
celui de S.M.B. ne se refusera pas à la demande que, par
l’entremise de V. E., je me permets de lui adresser.
Veuillez, &c., &c.,
APPONYI.”
(A Lord Clarendon.)
To this Panizzi, much amused and doubtless flattered, as he should
have been by the whole affair, which he had communicated as a good
joke to a few of his very intimate friends, sent a courteous reply
with the required information.
The effect of the new Reading-Room in encouraging study was speedily
perceptible. During 1856 the number of visitors had been 53,422.
From its opening to the public on May 18th, 1857, to the end of the
year they were 75,128. “The general success of the New Room,” said
the _Edinburgh Review_, “is, in fact, alarming.” The remark proved
just. The concourse of readers went on increasing until, in 1862, it
was necessary to raise the limit of age from 18 to 21, a measure
recommendable on other grounds. The result proved how large a
proportion of the visitors were youths under age, who merely
resorted to the Reading-Room to get up their tasks. The average
daily attendance fell from between nearly 400 and 500 to about 360,
and so continued until within the last few years, when, from causes
which do not fall within the scope of a history of Panizzi’s
administration, the daily average again rose and is now about 450,
or nearly treble that of the old Reading-Room.
Thus has been presented to our readers a short history of the steps
by which the present Reading-Room became a realized fact, and the
important part which Panizzi played in its design, erection,
ornamentation, and gradual development—a Room, which world-known
will ever associate his name with itself and its wonderful
treasures, and will remain a noble monument of his zeal for the
welfare and grandeur of an Institution so dearly loved.
END OF VOL. I.
[Illustration]
S. STRAKER AND SONS, PRINTERS, LONDON AND REDHILL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note
On p. 144, there is a passage beginning “How do you account...”, the
quotation marks of which are somehow incorrect. Rather than
speculate regarding the intent, it is left as printed.
Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected,
and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the
original.
36.5 in converting it into an instrume[m/n]t of Replaced.
Carbonarism
43.28 it was related at a bang[n/u]et. Inverted,
65.30 the highest admiration.[” /[ “]It would be Moved.
impossible,”
90.10 indicate a lively imagination.[”] Removed.
94.7 are neatly turned, and [and ] convey Redundant.
100.29 of an energetic admin[i]strative faculty. Inserted.
107.30 during these four months[,/.] Replaced.
117.11 besides Charles König, a German[.] Added.
124.24 that _lapis_ means a [a] _stone_ Redundant.
137.21 a recommendati[e/o]n from the other Principal Replaced.
Trustee
143.4 sterling value.[”] Removed.
171.17 (2 vols[.] 8vo, on vellum.) Added.
181.6 as a free man to Italy is evinced[.] Added.
188.35 the innumerable frag[e]ments Removed.
188.36 an Assi[s]tant in the Museum. Inserted.
189.13 even including Scotland.[’/”] Replaced.
217.33 who was likely to g[ua/au]ge the diplomacy Transposed.
220.7 le mariage du Duc de Montpensier[.] Added.
225.36 qui ne crée qu’une simple éven[t]ualité Restored.
255.3 To return to the British Museum an[d] the Restored.
Royal Commission
256.17 had been shown to exist[.] Added.
256.26 between Sir C[.] Fellows Added.
258.22 cases destructive of responsibility[.] Added.
272.21 you will be appreciated as you deserve.[’] Added.
282.22 on purpose to show him this[.] Added.
284.22 not always ple[a]sant or exhilarating Inserted.
286.7 “That nine copies of each book or books[’/”] Replaced.
298.15 as explained in my lett[t]er Removed.
305.1 ‘the _milder_ shades of Purgatory[’] Added.
311.2 et obtenait du Pape un privil[é/è]ge exclusif Replacced.
311.4 Je connaissais d[e/é]jà plusieurs des petites Replaced.
éditions
340.20 [á/à] la civilisation et au progrès. Replaced.
344.1 After eight months’ incumbency[./,] Replaced.
350.19 shown to Mr. Winter[ ]Jones on the same day. Inserted.
353.10 of those intended to sep[e/a]rate closets Replaced.
355.19 they cannot avoid giving them the choice[.] Added.
369.32 with the same “bon[a/â] fides” Replaced.
387.25 pour la biblioth[é/è]que Replaced.