mencing with the earliest Ionian and ending with the Byzantine, into the unworthy shrines of the most glorious creations of Greek genius, or into the dimly lighted and ill-proportioned galleries where in gaunt array and bewildering disorder he beholds Egyptian sphinxes and colossi, Assyrian winged bulls and bearded kings, and the archaic forms of Selinus and Ægina. A part of this incongruous herd, driven from the little light above, has taken refuge in the cellars beneath, whilst another portion, unable to find shelter under the protecting roof, enjoys the privilege of shivering beneath the damp and chilly but classic portico that adorns the exterior of the edifice.

This disgraceful state of confusion is not diminishing. It is on the increase. Only since our last article on the British Museum was written, fresh arrivals from the East and elsewhere have contributed to add to an evil which we then denounced as already unbearable. The excavations of Mr. Davis at Carthage have furnished us with a considerable collection of interesting PunicoRoman remains. The well-directed exertions of Mr. Newton have procured for the nation, from Halicarnassus, from Branchidæ, and from Cnidus, monuments equally important for their classic beauty and their historical value. His labours are not yet brought to a close. They promise still further fruits. To afford even the barest shelter to what he has sent home the Trustees have reduced the question of Greek porticoes in northern climes to the last absurdity, by uniting the columns with black hoarding and by covering the shady resort where philosophers should meet and discourse during the mid-day heat, with a glazed shed to keep off the cold blast and beating rain. Not that the Trustees are perhaps to blame for this disfigurement of a national edifice with such dubious pretensions to architectural beauties. They had scarcely any choice between what they have done, or leaving the sculptures on the grass plots in front exposed to the weather, or wrapped up in their travelling coats of tarpauling.

Accommodation might also be found, if necessary, on the basement floor for modern sculpture, to be kept, like the ancient, quite distinct from paintings, with which marble from its cold white surface but ill agrees. The plan of separating pictures from statues has now been adopted in all European museums, except the Uffizi at Florence, where their mixture has, certainly, far from a pleasing effect. In addition, ancient inscribed monuments of a classic period might be united to the collection of sculpture, as in the Vatican.

The national library and reading-room should form part of the Museum, as at present an arrangement fully justified by the close connection between art and literature. The special library

2 c 2

which

which should accompany a museum of natural history could be formed without difficulty. It would be comparatively limited in its extent, and would not necessarily include those rare and curious books which are indispensable to a great public collection, but are not required for the ordinary investigations of modern science.

The present first floor would furnish ample space for the exhibition in the most complete manner of busts, vases, bronzes, and all those collections of small objects, prints, and original drawings, which are now either shown under very unfavourable circumstances, or are withdrawn altogether on account of want of room from public view. Abundant space would still be left for a distinct collection of British antiquities, a very desirable and important addition to our National Museum. Mr. Ruskin, in his evidence before the Commission, recommends that woodwork, ironwork, jewellery, and other objects of the same nature, should be added to these collections, and justly insists upon the difficulty of defining the distinction between useful and ornamental art. Admitting the importance of these things as illustrations of the extended application of the principles of art, we are not disposed to advocate this addition to the museum, especially as the nation has now at Kensington a well-ordered, institution expressly intended for their reception, and for the artistic education of artisans in their special handicrafts.

As regards the national pictures, it is proposed that an additional story, expressly adapted to their reception, should be added to the present building. A vast and commodious range of galleries, halls, and chambers, might then be constructed capable of holding not only all the paintings now possessed by the nation, but as large a collection as is likely to be brought together for many generations. Galleries more than 2000 feet in length, and in some parts 70 in breadth, which might be divided into two parallel series or into separate chambers, would surround the present quadrangle, affording space far greater than that assigned to the display of paintings in the largest galleries of Europe, not even excepting the Louvre. They would be raised almost above the dirt and dust of a crowded city, and would partly escape the influence of the much-dreaded London atmosphere and smoke. Properly constructed they would be airy, well ventilated, and would have the very best light that could be obtained in the metropolis. Long and spacious galleries and a succession of chambers would admit of the most complete arrangement of pictures, according to epochs and schools. Halls might be built expressly to receive the Cartoons and other choice works. Every picture could be hung so that it might be properly seen and examined,

examined, and a picture which is worth keeping in the collection at all should be worth looking at, and should not be suspended above a certain height from the ground.* We may imagine-although we fear it would be indulging in a dream the fulfilment of which we shall never see what might be made by a great architect out of such materials-what loggie ornamented with frescoes, like those of the Vatican-what elegant and appropriate decoration-what an unrivalled exhibition of the rarest works of painting, all displayed to the utmost advantage! It may be objected to this plan that the height of this second floor would be inconvenient to the public. This objection, which applies equally to the picture galleries of Florence and the Vatican, might be removed by the construction of an inclined way, or some such contrivance, on one side of the building, bringing the visitor to the first floor, whence but one flight of stairs would conduct him to the upper.

There is one argument in favour of transferring the pictures to the British Museum instead of transporting the Museum collections to Trafalgar Square, which, in our opinion, is worthy of serious consideration-viz., the risk to be incurred in moving sculpture and objects of art to any new site. It appears to us that the sculptures in the British Museum are already much too frequently meddled with. It would seem that the Trustees can never make up their minds as to where they are to be seen to the most advantage. The Elgin Marbles, for instance, have during the last few years been constantly travelling from place to place, or changing their pedestals. We presume that even now they are not permanently fixed in their present awkward position. These incessant changes must be attended by serious injury, and we trust that a stop will soon be put to them. To transfer the whole collection bodily to another building at some distance would be both hazardous and expensive. The same objection does not apply to specimens of natural history. Even should a mishap occur, there are few, if any of them, that could not be replaced; whilst an accident to a fine monument of Greek art would be irreparable. We say, therefore, take the pictures to the sculptures, not the sculptures to the pictures.

Sir Charles Barry has emphatically declared that the architectural part of the scheme is perfectly practicable, and may be

* We quite agree with Mr. Ruskin that no really good picture should be hung above the line of the eye, and that, unless in the case of very small works, there should never be more than two lines of pictures upon the wall. Nor should pictures be crowded together as they now are in the National Gallery, but between each there should be a sufficient space showing the colour of the wall on which they are hung.

very economically and effectually, as well as effectively, carried out." ** The light on the basement floor can, he states, be improved, whilst windows may be opened in that part of the first floor which would be deprived of the skylights. The expense would be small, indeed, compared with the purchase of new ground and the erection of a suitable building in Trafalgar Square. A plain brick continuation of the present upper floor is all that is required, and we are assured that this could be built for a sum under 50,000l. We trust that no such absurd objection to the plan, if there be none more serious, as the disfigurement of the present edifice, will be admitted. In the first place, there need be no disfigurement; in the second, we doubt whether there be much to disfigure-certainly not sufficient to require the sacrifice of any great national object.

The

It may be asked what we propose to do with the building in Trafalgar Square, and with the collections of natural history. As regards the first, it might have been advisable to allow the Royal Academy to remain there, either without charge or on the payment of an annual rent, which could scarcely have exceeded the interest of the money they will be required to spend in erecting a building on the Burlington House property. wants of that body would then have been abundantly provided for, and Government could have availed itself for other purposes of the land now presented to it. But there are many public uses to which an edifice on so important a site can be applied. Its central position, and its vicinity to the Houses of Parliament, are perhaps better adapted to new courts of law, which are now urgently required, than to any other object; and funds supplied by the resources of the law itself could, it is asserted upon the highest legal authority, be applied to their erection.

Professor Owen declares that no less than eight acres in superficial area are required for the exhibition of the existing collections of natural history, so as to afford a complete and really instructive view of each branch of the subject.† At present there is barely one acre devoted to that purpose, and it is quite clear that no adequate additional space could be obtained in the present building without making vast additions to it, by purchasing for that purpose at a very considerable expense to the country a large amount of the surrounding property. Even those who were recently opposed to the separation of art and science,

* Evidence before National Gallery-site Commission, q. 2188. The italics are used in the printed evidence.

† See his conclusive report addressed to the Trustees of the British Museum on the 10th of February, and included in the papers presented to Parliament.

and

and upon whose protest against the removal of the latter we commented in our previous article, are now, for the most part, anxious for the change, if adequate accommodation and a suitable site can be obtained elsewhere. It is proposed, therefore, that all the collections of natural history be concentrated either at Kensington, where land well suited to the purpose has already been acquired, or, if preferable, in some other part of the metropolis or its suburbs.

The concentration of art and archæology-of painting, sculpture, and antiquities-under one roof, is advocated by such high authority, that we can scarcely imagine any one so blinded by ancient prejudice, and so insensible to the weight of evidence, as to oppose it. Before the National Gallery Site Commission, Sir C. Barry, and Messrs. Bell, Westmacott, Marochetti, Ruskin, Fergusson, Lewis, and Panizzi, and other competent witnesses, were unanimous in its favour. In completing the magnificent design of the Louvre space has been provided for the exhibition of objects of art and antiquity in nearly every branch, from the earliest period to the middle ages. The Vatican, less convenient in some respects than the Louvre, still makes provision for the display of its fine Egyptian, Etruscan, and early Christian* Museums, as well as of its unrivalled collection of Græco-Roman and Roman sculpture. In many departments of art we may not be as rich as those two celebrated museums. In examples of Roman sculpture we can never hope to attain the wealth of the Vatican; in the number of our pictures we shall probably never equal the Louvre ;-but in the variety of our collections and in their completeness for the illustration of every period and form of art, we are already in advance of them both. Our Egyptian and Assyrian remains, the archaic figures from Branchidæ, the monuments from Lycia, the Phigalian frieze, the bas-reliefs and statues from Halicarnassus, the glorious sculptures of the Parthenon, the Townley Marbles, and the fragments from Carthage, together with the Greek and Etruscan vases, the bronzes, terracottas, coins, and various small objects of antiquity, furnish materials for the history of ancient art such as are possessed by no nation in the world. They only require judicious and systematic arrangement to give them their full value.

But whether the national collection of paintings is to remain in Trafalgar Square, or to be removed to the British Museum, we trust that either in erecting a new building, or in altering one already in existence, the object for which it is intended, and not

*A separate museum for a certain class of early Christian remains, chiefly obtained from the catacombs, and including inscriptions, has recently been formed in the Lateran.