Abraham, R., architect.—Adam, Robert, architect.—Arch, Green Park.—Ashburnham House.Bank of England, account of; New Dividend Pay Office—Basevi, G., architect.—Banqueting House, Whitehall.—Barry, C., architect.—Barry, James, painter.—Belgrave Square.—Bethlehem Hospital.—Blackfriars’ Bridge.—Bonomi, Jos., architect.—Bridges, London Bridge.—British Museum, account of; description of the new building.—Brooks, W., architect.—Burlington House—Burton, D., architect.Carlton Palace.—Chambers, Sir W., architect.—Christ’s Hospital, new Hall.—Club House, Travellers’.—Club House, Union.—Club House, University.—Cockerell, C. R., architect.—College of Physicians, Warwick Lane.—College of Physicians, Pall Mall East.—Column, the York.—Corn Exchange.—Cornwall Terrace.—County Fire Office.—Custom House.—Cunningham, Allan.Dance, Mr., architect.—Dodd, Ralph, engineer.Eaton Square.Fishmongers’ Hall; former building; new Hall; interior described.—Freemasons’ Hall.Galleries, dimensions of various.—Gandy-Deering, architect.—George’s, St., Hospital.—George’s, St., Bloomsbury, portico of.—Grecian architecture, modern, remarks on.—Greenough’s, Mr., Villa.Holkam House.—Holland, H., architect.—Hope’s, Mr., House.—Horse-Guards.—Hospital, Bethlehem.—Hospital, St. George’s.India House.—Intercolumniation, remark on the term.Jones, Inigo.—Jupp, R., architect.Kendall, H. E., architect.—Kent, W., architect.—King’s College.Labelye, architect.—Lewis, J. architect.—Libraries, dimensions of some.—London Institution—London University.—London Bridge, the old one; the new one.Mansion House.—Mark’s, St., North Audley Street.—Museum, British.—Museum, Soanean.—Mylne, R., architect.Nash, J., architect.—Nash’s, J., House and Gallery.—National Gallery.—Newgate.Palace, Buckingham; interior; sculpture gallery; state apartments.—Papworth’s remarks on Somerset House; on English Villas.—Pimlico Institution, portico of.—Pitts, W., sculpture by.—Ponz, remark by, on the Royal Exchange.—Portico, St. George’s Hospital;—National Gallery; London University; St. Martin’s; St. George’s, Bloomsbury; Carlton Palace.—Post Office.—Privy Council Office, &c., account of.Ralph, Mr.—Regent’s Park.—Rennie, J., engineer.—Roberts, H., architect.—Royal Exchange; destruction of the building by fire.—Russell Institution.Sandby, T., architect.—Saunders, G., architect.—Shaw, J., architect.—Sion Park Gateway.—Smirke, Sir Robert, architect.—Smith, G., architect.—Soane, Sir J., architect, his House and Museum.—Society of Arts.—Somerset House.—Southwark Bridge.Taylor, Sir R., architect.—Telford, Mr., his opinion of the Mansion House. Temple Bar.—Terraces in Regent’s Park.—Travellers’ Club House.Vardy, Mr., architect.—Vauxhall Bridge.—Villa, Mr. Burton’s.—Villa, Mr. Greenough’s.—Villa, Mr. Kemp’s.Union Club House.—University Club House.—Uxbridge House.Walpole, Horace, his character of Lord Burlington: remark on Burlington House.—Ware, S., architect.—Waterloo Bridge.—Westminster Bridge.—Wellington House.—Wilkins, W., architect.—Wren, Sir C., architect.York Column.—York Stairs Water-gate, &c.
Abraham, R., architect.—Adam, Robert, architect.—Arch, Green Park.—Ashburnham House.
Bank of England, account of; New Dividend Pay Office—Basevi, G., architect.—Banqueting House, Whitehall.—Barry, C., architect.—Barry, James, painter.—Belgrave Square.—Bethlehem Hospital.—Blackfriars’ Bridge.—Bonomi, Jos., architect.—Bridges, London Bridge.—British Museum, account of; description of the new building.—Brooks, W., architect.—Burlington House—Burton, D., architect.
Carlton Palace.—Chambers, Sir W., architect.—Christ’s Hospital, new Hall.—Club House, Travellers’.—Club House, Union.—Club House, University.—Cockerell, C. R., architect.—College of Physicians, Warwick Lane.—College of Physicians, Pall Mall East.—Column, the York.—Corn Exchange.—Cornwall Terrace.—County Fire Office.—Custom House.—Cunningham, Allan.
Dance, Mr., architect.—Dodd, Ralph, engineer.
Eaton Square.
Fishmongers’ Hall; former building; new Hall; interior described.—Freemasons’ Hall.
Galleries, dimensions of various.—Gandy-Deering, architect.—George’s, St., Hospital.—George’s, St., Bloomsbury, portico of.—Grecian architecture, modern, remarks on.—Greenough’s, Mr., Villa.
Holkam House.—Holland, H., architect.—Hope’s, Mr., House.—Horse-Guards.—Hospital, Bethlehem.—Hospital, St. George’s.
India House.—Intercolumniation, remark on the term.
Jones, Inigo.—Jupp, R., architect.
Kendall, H. E., architect.—Kent, W., architect.—King’s College.
Labelye, architect.—Lewis, J. architect.—Libraries, dimensions of some.—London Institution—London University.—London Bridge, the old one; the new one.
Mansion House.—Mark’s, St., North Audley Street.—Museum, British.—Museum, Soanean.—Mylne, R., architect.
Nash, J., architect.—Nash’s, J., House and Gallery.—National Gallery.—Newgate.
Palace, Buckingham; interior; sculpture gallery; state apartments.—Papworth’s remarks on Somerset House; on English Villas.—Pimlico Institution, portico of.—Pitts, W., sculpture by.—Ponz, remark by, on the Royal Exchange.—Portico, St. George’s Hospital;—National Gallery; London University; St. Martin’s; St. George’s, Bloomsbury; Carlton Palace.—Post Office.—Privy Council Office, &c., account of.
Ralph, Mr.—Regent’s Park.—Rennie, J., engineer.—Roberts, H., architect.—Royal Exchange; destruction of the building by fire.—Russell Institution.
Sandby, T., architect.—Saunders, G., architect.—Shaw, J., architect.—Sion Park Gateway.—Smirke, Sir Robert, architect.—Smith, G., architect.—Soane, Sir J., architect, his House and Museum.—Society of Arts.—Somerset House.—Southwark Bridge.
Taylor, Sir R., architect.—Telford, Mr., his opinion of the Mansion House. Temple Bar.—Terraces in Regent’s Park.—Travellers’ Club House.
Vardy, Mr., architect.—Vauxhall Bridge.—Villa, Mr. Burton’s.—Villa, Mr. Greenough’s.—Villa, Mr. Kemp’s.
Union Club House.—University Club House.—Uxbridge House.
Walpole, Horace, his character of Lord Burlington: remark on Burlington House.—Ware, S., architect.—Waterloo Bridge.—Westminster Bridge.—Wellington House.—Wilkins, W., architect.—Wren, Sir C., architect.
York Column.—York Stairs Water-gate, &c.
Footnotes:[1]The species of statue so called, and consisting of the upper part of a human figure growing out of a pedestal which tapers downwards, and appears to enclose the rest of the body.[2]The necessity for agreement in this respect between the column and its entablature will be rendered apparent by the preposterous effect produced in two instances where the columns have been prolonged to an absurd height without the entablature being deepened in the same degree; namely, the portico of the Admiralty, and that within the court of Furnival’s Inn; the first of which is bad enough, the other far worse in every respect.[3]For similar reason, the same concavity in the sides of the abacus takes place in the four-faced Ionic capital, the abacus being so shaped in order that it may subtend over and cover the diagonally turned volutes.[4]We place these examples according to their respective proportional heights, beginning with the highest, and descending to the lowest, and note their measurements inminutesrather than in diameters and fractional parts, as being the most direct and convenient mode of comparison. The height of the capital is taken exclusive of the astragal which divides it from the shaft of the column; and as theexpansionof the capital upwards has also to be considered, the extreme width of the abacus is also indicated.Height ofCaptialDiagonal ofAbacusLysicrates example87'94'Nerva do. (columns of the Forum of Nerva)73'90'Pantheon at Rome69'90'Jupiter Stator, Temple of,66'97'Tivoli, Temple of the Sibyls,60'81'[5]By way of illustrating these terms more directly by instances taken from well-known modern porticoes which answer to the respective denominations and distinctions above noted, we here give a classified list of some of them:Distyle in antis.Two columnsThreeSt. Paul’s, Covent Garden.& two antæ.inter-columns.Hanover Chapel, Regent Street.Tetrastyle.Four columns.*Covent Garden Theatre.Hexastyle.Six columns.St. George’s Church, Bloomsbury.*St. George’s, Hanover Square.St. Martin’s Church.Five*St. Pancras’ Church.inter-India House.columns.Post Office.*College of Surgeons.*College of Physicians.*Colosseum.Octastyle.Eight columns.SevenNational Gallery.inter-Royal Exchange.columns.British Museum.Decastyle.Ten columns.NineLondon University College.inter-columns.The porticoes marked with the * are simple prostyles, ormonoprostyle, advancing only a single intercolumn forwarder than the rest of the building; while the others arediprostyle, or show two open intercolumns on their flanks; except Hanover Chapel, whose portico is partly prostyle and partly recessed, and that of the India House, which is entirely recessed, although its elevation is not a compositionin antis; had it been such, it would have been atetrastyle in antis, that and a hexastyle having the same number of intercolumns, viz. five.[6]Should the reader be quite fresh to the subject, he is recommended to draw out for himself,—merely roughly mark down,—the several dispositions of columns which have been spoken of; for by compelling him to consider them carefully, he will be better able to understand them, and have them distinctly impressed upon his memory. The annexed may serve as a specimen of such short-hand architectural notation, in asterisks.* * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Peripteral Hexastyle, ** 12 intercolumns **on sides.** * * * * * * * * * * * * *[7]This mode of uniting together columns and arches is perfectly legitimate, whereas that in which a fragment of the usual entablature is left sticking or added to each column, (as, for instance, in the interior of St. Martin’s Church,) is decidedly solecistical, since it is injuriously reminiscent ofepistylarconstruction or trabeation,—is in itself unmeaning, and causes the columns to appear to have been too short, and therefore to have been eked out in height by blocks upon them, fashioned to resemble so many detached bits of an entablature.
Footnotes:
[1]The species of statue so called, and consisting of the upper part of a human figure growing out of a pedestal which tapers downwards, and appears to enclose the rest of the body.
[1]The species of statue so called, and consisting of the upper part of a human figure growing out of a pedestal which tapers downwards, and appears to enclose the rest of the body.
[2]The necessity for agreement in this respect between the column and its entablature will be rendered apparent by the preposterous effect produced in two instances where the columns have been prolonged to an absurd height without the entablature being deepened in the same degree; namely, the portico of the Admiralty, and that within the court of Furnival’s Inn; the first of which is bad enough, the other far worse in every respect.
[2]The necessity for agreement in this respect between the column and its entablature will be rendered apparent by the preposterous effect produced in two instances where the columns have been prolonged to an absurd height without the entablature being deepened in the same degree; namely, the portico of the Admiralty, and that within the court of Furnival’s Inn; the first of which is bad enough, the other far worse in every respect.
[3]For similar reason, the same concavity in the sides of the abacus takes place in the four-faced Ionic capital, the abacus being so shaped in order that it may subtend over and cover the diagonally turned volutes.
[3]For similar reason, the same concavity in the sides of the abacus takes place in the four-faced Ionic capital, the abacus being so shaped in order that it may subtend over and cover the diagonally turned volutes.
[4]We place these examples according to their respective proportional heights, beginning with the highest, and descending to the lowest, and note their measurements inminutesrather than in diameters and fractional parts, as being the most direct and convenient mode of comparison. The height of the capital is taken exclusive of the astragal which divides it from the shaft of the column; and as theexpansionof the capital upwards has also to be considered, the extreme width of the abacus is also indicated.Height ofCaptialDiagonal ofAbacusLysicrates example87'94'Nerva do. (columns of the Forum of Nerva)73'90'Pantheon at Rome69'90'Jupiter Stator, Temple of,66'97'Tivoli, Temple of the Sibyls,60'81'
[4]We place these examples according to their respective proportional heights, beginning with the highest, and descending to the lowest, and note their measurements inminutesrather than in diameters and fractional parts, as being the most direct and convenient mode of comparison. The height of the capital is taken exclusive of the astragal which divides it from the shaft of the column; and as theexpansionof the capital upwards has also to be considered, the extreme width of the abacus is also indicated.
[5]By way of illustrating these terms more directly by instances taken from well-known modern porticoes which answer to the respective denominations and distinctions above noted, we here give a classified list of some of them:Distyle in antis.Two columnsThreeSt. Paul’s, Covent Garden.& two antæ.inter-columns.Hanover Chapel, Regent Street.Tetrastyle.Four columns.*Covent Garden Theatre.Hexastyle.Six columns.St. George’s Church, Bloomsbury.*St. George’s, Hanover Square.St. Martin’s Church.Five*St. Pancras’ Church.inter-India House.columns.Post Office.*College of Surgeons.*College of Physicians.*Colosseum.Octastyle.Eight columns.SevenNational Gallery.inter-Royal Exchange.columns.British Museum.Decastyle.Ten columns.NineLondon University College.inter-columns.The porticoes marked with the * are simple prostyles, ormonoprostyle, advancing only a single intercolumn forwarder than the rest of the building; while the others arediprostyle, or show two open intercolumns on their flanks; except Hanover Chapel, whose portico is partly prostyle and partly recessed, and that of the India House, which is entirely recessed, although its elevation is not a compositionin antis; had it been such, it would have been atetrastyle in antis, that and a hexastyle having the same number of intercolumns, viz. five.
[5]By way of illustrating these terms more directly by instances taken from well-known modern porticoes which answer to the respective denominations and distinctions above noted, we here give a classified list of some of them:
The porticoes marked with the * are simple prostyles, ormonoprostyle, advancing only a single intercolumn forwarder than the rest of the building; while the others arediprostyle, or show two open intercolumns on their flanks; except Hanover Chapel, whose portico is partly prostyle and partly recessed, and that of the India House, which is entirely recessed, although its elevation is not a compositionin antis; had it been such, it would have been atetrastyle in antis, that and a hexastyle having the same number of intercolumns, viz. five.
[6]Should the reader be quite fresh to the subject, he is recommended to draw out for himself,—merely roughly mark down,—the several dispositions of columns which have been spoken of; for by compelling him to consider them carefully, he will be better able to understand them, and have them distinctly impressed upon his memory. The annexed may serve as a specimen of such short-hand architectural notation, in asterisks.* * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Peripteral Hexastyle, ** 12 intercolumns **on sides.** * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[6]Should the reader be quite fresh to the subject, he is recommended to draw out for himself,—merely roughly mark down,—the several dispositions of columns which have been spoken of; for by compelling him to consider them carefully, he will be better able to understand them, and have them distinctly impressed upon his memory. The annexed may serve as a specimen of such short-hand architectural notation, in asterisks.
[7]This mode of uniting together columns and arches is perfectly legitimate, whereas that in which a fragment of the usual entablature is left sticking or added to each column, (as, for instance, in the interior of St. Martin’s Church,) is decidedly solecistical, since it is injuriously reminiscent ofepistylarconstruction or trabeation,—is in itself unmeaning, and causes the columns to appear to have been too short, and therefore to have been eked out in height by blocks upon them, fashioned to resemble so many detached bits of an entablature.
[7]This mode of uniting together columns and arches is perfectly legitimate, whereas that in which a fragment of the usual entablature is left sticking or added to each column, (as, for instance, in the interior of St. Martin’s Church,) is decidedly solecistical, since it is injuriously reminiscent ofepistylarconstruction or trabeation,—is in itself unmeaning, and causes the columns to appear to have been too short, and therefore to have been eked out in height by blocks upon them, fashioned to resemble so many detached bits of an entablature.
Transcriber’s Notes:The illustrations have been moved so that they do not break up paragraphs and so that they are next to the text they illustrate.Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected.The advertisement for the book “ARCHITECTURE OF THE METROPOLIS” has been moved from the beginning of the book to the end of the book.
Transcriber’s Notes:
The illustrations have been moved so that they do not break up paragraphs and so that they are next to the text they illustrate.
Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected.
The advertisement for the book “ARCHITECTURE OF THE METROPOLIS” has been moved from the beginning of the book to the end of the book.