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 339modern 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 fa?ade 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 340have 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 con?oit 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.
341the 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 con?ue avec un tel puritanisme qu’elle est restée au dessous des salles d’attente des chemins de fer, comme ornementation et comme go?t. une large cheminée de fonte, chauffée à blanc huit mois de l’année, occupe le centre de chaque pièce, et, par son prosa?sme forme le plus étrange contraste avec les ?uvres élégantes, filles du soleil, qui l’entourent.”
to the objection that those who thus flatly condemn 342one 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 343ornamentation 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. 344after 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.
345one 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 346into 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:—
347
“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, 348whether to the student, the critic, or the occasional lounger!
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 349daily 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 350new 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 fa?ade. 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 fa?ade 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 351be 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 352eventually 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 353building, 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 35425,000 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]
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 355with 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.”
356in 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 357severity; 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.
358that 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 359of 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 360question, 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.”
361most 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 362grand 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.
363but 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 364they 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.”
365although, 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, 366the 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:—
367
“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.”
368the 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 bona fides of the author. h?c 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.
369this 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 “bona fides” as mr. hosking.
370not 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:—
“athen?um,
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 371the 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.
372you 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.
“athen?um, 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.
373how 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 374the 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 375the 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 376plan 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.
3776th.—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.
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 378am 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 c?lo” 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 379existence 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 380of 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.
381the 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 382panels 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 383335 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 384of 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. 385“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 386from 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 387effigy 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 na?tre au ministère de l’instruction publique en autriche le désir de conna?tre plus à fond tout ce qui se rapporte à l’établissement de cette salle dans le b?t 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.
388j’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 389which 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.
