little known as yet, Mr. Smith tells us that, within eight months after its completion, it was visited by over twenty-four thousand people. His “Propaganda” pamphlet contains, naturally, a considerable number of illustrations, by photographic process, of interiors in these beautiful buildings, to show how interesting collections, shown in this way, may be ; and, besides these, there are many photographic plates, plans, and reproductions of woodcuts, drawings and engravings, of foreign museums, buildings and objects, and of the designs for the projected gallery in Washington. All the borrowed material is conscientiously credited to its source, and Mr. Smith, with a modest apology for making himself “ inevitably,” as he rightly says, so prominent.in the book, invites from all sources suggestions for improvements in the scheme, in which lie has, as he says, “an intense interest.” We sincerely wish that he may see his desire fulfilled, and that a National Museum, after his plan, may speedily be commenced. As the promise of money is the first thing necessary, he proposes that, as with the foreign museums, the donors of a certain sum, say one hundred thousand dollars, shall be known, and celebrated in the catalogues, as Founders ; those who give or bequeath one thousand shall be immortalized as Benefactors; those who give one h undred, as Patrons, and so on. Meanwhile, he proposes to continue the “propaganda” by the free distribution of his pamphlet to public institutions, members of Congress, colleges, academies, superintendents of schools, and so on, and its sale at a nominal price —fifty cents — to the public generally. Mr. Smith disarms possible suspicion as to the honesty of his motives, by assuring his readers that he does not own a foot of land in Washington, and that the construction of the building would be of no pecuniary advantage to him; and it is impossible to read his book, and reflect on what he has already done in pursuit of his ideas, without believing him. If any one wishes to share in the propaganda, or to possess Mr. Smith’s book, he should write to the Office of the Propaganda, 1419 F Street, Washington, D. C., or directly to Mr. Franklin W. Smith, at the Pompeia, Saratoga Springs, N. Y., the latter only from May to November.
W
E have very great pleasure in welcoming to architectural journalism one of the most satisfactory periodicals which has yet been devoted to architecture in any country. This newcomer is a quarterly, to be known as the Architectural Record, and if it is to fulfil the promise of its first number, we advise those of our readers who like to see architectural subjects of permanent interest treated by writers who understand them, to lose no time in sending one dollar to its publishers, at 14-16 Vesey Street, New York, for their first year’s subscription. In their introductory address, the conductors of the new review say that they have undertaken to enter a field which must be entered with serious purpose, or not at all, and all thorough architects will agree with them that, while the occupation of this field imposes grave responsibilities, it greatly needs to be occupied; and that a magazine which will faithfully fulfil the duties incident to such a position may do incalculable service to the cause of art in this country, and, perhaps, later, elsewhere. We believe that architects everywhere are heartily sick of seeing professional periodicals either padded with disquisitions which seem to have been composed by second-year students in the professional schools, or devoted to the personal advancement of some small clique of practitioners; and will welcome with much satisfaction a publication from which even the best of them may learn something to help him in his work, while it will offer a still more valuable service, one, too, which it is hardly possible for a weekly journal to render, in the form of honest and intelligent criticism of current architectural work. Not only is it almost impracticable for a weekly journal, which must rather reflect the course of events than comment upon them, to undertake this latter task, but the criticism which will be of most service to architects should generally have something of the lay character which a quarterly review may possess, as distinguished from the intimate connection with the members of the profession more proper to the weekly periodical. In fact, the criticism of a well-instructed amateur is perhaps more useful to architects than that of a member of their own profession, who, while he comprehends their difficulties better, is more likely to be biased for or against a particular school, and may have personal relations, which, if they do not warp his judgment, hinder the free expression of it; and if, as we suppose, the new review intends to give a considerable space to such criticism, its value to the profession is
assured. The first number contains an article on the Romanesque Revival in New York, by Mr. Montgomery Schuyler, which, we need not say, is a model of conscientious work of the kind, and we hope is only one of a series. We find also, among other things, an interesting article on the New York Building Law, by that most earnest and untiring advocate of improvements in the statute, Mr. William J. Fryer, Jr.; a reprint of a part of Professor Aitchison’s admirable Royal Academy lectures on Byzantine Architecture; a very good paper on plumbing, by a contributor who modestly signs his initials only; and a review, much too short, of Professor Moore’s book on Gothic Architecture. This last is by far the best review we have yet seen of Professor Moore’s book, and, it seems to us, the best review of an architectural book that has yet been published in this country. We say that the bookreview is the last article in the number; but there is a chapter of a novel, which would have the air of having been accidentally bound up with the rest of the magazine, if it were not mentioned in the table of contents on the cover. We must confess that we have left the reading of the novel to a more convenient occasion, so that any comments we might have to make on it will be deferred. There is, however, a criticism on the general appearance of the magazine, which we will make now, but with a recommendation to mercy, as we know the difficulties which beset the writer on architecture in search of appropriate illustrations. While the present number contains sixty-four illustrations, of one sort or another, and while all are interesting and valuable, their effect is woefully injured by their heterogeneous character, and the curious manner in which they are scattered through the pages, without any regard, in many cases, to the text which shares the space with them. The best of the illustrations are process-plates from nature, well made and well printed, but some appear to be reproductions of wood-cuts, and others are copied from pen-and-ink drawings, of varying degrees of merit. Mr. Schuyler’s paper, for example, might, with very little difficulty, have been immensely improved by illustrating it entirely with process-plates from the objects themselves, all of which were readilv accessible, instead of trusting to office perspectives for representations of many of them; and an article on terra-cotta is by no means happily associated with pictures of brass gas-fixtures. Of course, all this will be corrected later; and in the meantime, we will be quite content with what we have, and, indeed, will be very glad that it is so good.
C
OLONEL CHAILLIE-LONG writes to the New Torh Tribune, earnestly urging the return of the obelisk, now in the Central Park, to the place in Alexandria whence it came. He cites the example of England, which, he says, is about to restore the Elgin marbles to Greece, and calls upon Americans to subscribe to restore their obelisk to Egypt. The principal reason for doing so, to our mind, is to be found in the fact that the obelisk is not likely to resist our climate many years longer; and, as every sculptured Egyptian stone is a precious document from a people and age as yet very imperfectly understood, the proper place for such objects is in the country whose climate suits them best, and in the place where their intended relation to other objects can be properly studied ; that is, in the place which they came from. With the Elgin marbles the case is different. The probability is that if they had been left in Athens they would have disappeared by this time under the battering of the local vandals; and Lord Elgin unquestionably did a great service to art in carrying them away to a place where they could be preserved and appreciated. Now, however, the London air is beginning to tell upon them, while the Athenians are learning to show greater respect for such objects; and it would certainly be instructive to architects and students to see just how the sculptures looked in the place for which they were made, so that it is not impossible that the transfer of the reliefs back to the Parthenon might now be artistically a good thing, although we doubt very much whether it is likely to take place at present.
I
T is doubtful whether the cause of the collapse of the building in Park Place, New York, on Saturday last, will ever be absolutely determined. It is enough at this moment to chronicle an event which has cost sixty or seventy lives without attempting to determine whether the accident was due to structural weakness or to an explosion, similar to that which caused the downfall of a candy-factory in Barclay Street in the same city, in December, 1877.
W
E have very great pleasure in welcoming to architectural journalism one of the most satisfactory periodicals which has yet been devoted to architecture in any country. This newcomer is a quarterly, to be known as the Architectural Record, and if it is to fulfil the promise of its first number, we advise those of our readers who like to see architectural subjects of permanent interest treated by writers who understand them, to lose no time in sending one dollar to its publishers, at 14-16 Vesey Street, New York, for their first year’s subscription. In their introductory address, the conductors of the new review say that they have undertaken to enter a field which must be entered with serious purpose, or not at all, and all thorough architects will agree with them that, while the occupation of this field imposes grave responsibilities, it greatly needs to be occupied; and that a magazine which will faithfully fulfil the duties incident to such a position may do incalculable service to the cause of art in this country, and, perhaps, later, elsewhere. We believe that architects everywhere are heartily sick of seeing professional periodicals either padded with disquisitions which seem to have been composed by second-year students in the professional schools, or devoted to the personal advancement of some small clique of practitioners; and will welcome with much satisfaction a publication from which even the best of them may learn something to help him in his work, while it will offer a still more valuable service, one, too, which it is hardly possible for a weekly journal to render, in the form of honest and intelligent criticism of current architectural work. Not only is it almost impracticable for a weekly journal, which must rather reflect the course of events than comment upon them, to undertake this latter task, but the criticism which will be of most service to architects should generally have something of the lay character which a quarterly review may possess, as distinguished from the intimate connection with the members of the profession more proper to the weekly periodical. In fact, the criticism of a well-instructed amateur is perhaps more useful to architects than that of a member of their own profession, who, while he comprehends their difficulties better, is more likely to be biased for or against a particular school, and may have personal relations, which, if they do not warp his judgment, hinder the free expression of it; and if, as we suppose, the new review intends to give a considerable space to such criticism, its value to the profession is
assured. The first number contains an article on the Romanesque Revival in New York, by Mr. Montgomery Schuyler, which, we need not say, is a model of conscientious work of the kind, and we hope is only one of a series. We find also, among other things, an interesting article on the New York Building Law, by that most earnest and untiring advocate of improvements in the statute, Mr. William J. Fryer, Jr.; a reprint of a part of Professor Aitchison’s admirable Royal Academy lectures on Byzantine Architecture; a very good paper on plumbing, by a contributor who modestly signs his initials only; and a review, much too short, of Professor Moore’s book on Gothic Architecture. This last is by far the best review we have yet seen of Professor Moore’s book, and, it seems to us, the best review of an architectural book that has yet been published in this country. We say that the bookreview is the last article in the number; but there is a chapter of a novel, which would have the air of having been accidentally bound up with the rest of the magazine, if it were not mentioned in the table of contents on the cover. We must confess that we have left the reading of the novel to a more convenient occasion, so that any comments we might have to make on it will be deferred. There is, however, a criticism on the general appearance of the magazine, which we will make now, but with a recommendation to mercy, as we know the difficulties which beset the writer on architecture in search of appropriate illustrations. While the present number contains sixty-four illustrations, of one sort or another, and while all are interesting and valuable, their effect is woefully injured by their heterogeneous character, and the curious manner in which they are scattered through the pages, without any regard, in many cases, to the text which shares the space with them. The best of the illustrations are process-plates from nature, well made and well printed, but some appear to be reproductions of wood-cuts, and others are copied from pen-and-ink drawings, of varying degrees of merit. Mr. Schuyler’s paper, for example, might, with very little difficulty, have been immensely improved by illustrating it entirely with process-plates from the objects themselves, all of which were readilv accessible, instead of trusting to office perspectives for representations of many of them; and an article on terra-cotta is by no means happily associated with pictures of brass gas-fixtures. Of course, all this will be corrected later; and in the meantime, we will be quite content with what we have, and, indeed, will be very glad that it is so good.
C
OLONEL CHAILLIE-LONG writes to the New Torh Tribune, earnestly urging the return of the obelisk, now in the Central Park, to the place in Alexandria whence it came. He cites the example of England, which, he says, is about to restore the Elgin marbles to Greece, and calls upon Americans to subscribe to restore their obelisk to Egypt. The principal reason for doing so, to our mind, is to be found in the fact that the obelisk is not likely to resist our climate many years longer; and, as every sculptured Egyptian stone is a precious document from a people and age as yet very imperfectly understood, the proper place for such objects is in the country whose climate suits them best, and in the place where their intended relation to other objects can be properly studied ; that is, in the place which they came from. With the Elgin marbles the case is different. The probability is that if they had been left in Athens they would have disappeared by this time under the battering of the local vandals; and Lord Elgin unquestionably did a great service to art in carrying them away to a place where they could be preserved and appreciated. Now, however, the London air is beginning to tell upon them, while the Athenians are learning to show greater respect for such objects; and it would certainly be instructive to architects and students to see just how the sculptures looked in the place for which they were made, so that it is not impossible that the transfer of the reliefs back to the Parthenon might now be artistically a good thing, although we doubt very much whether it is likely to take place at present.
I
T is doubtful whether the cause of the collapse of the building in Park Place, New York, on Saturday last, will ever be absolutely determined. It is enough at this moment to chronicle an event which has cost sixty or seventy lives without attempting to determine whether the accident was due to structural weakness or to an explosion, similar to that which caused the downfall of a candy-factory in Barclay Street in the same city, in December, 1877.