It would be difficult, as we before observed, to give a definite description of Italian architecture ; we can, however, attempt to give some general notion of a few of its leadin:. characteristics. One of the main points in which it differs from purely classical art, is its partiality fin. fenestration or the introduction of windows, so as to form It marked feature in the design. The employment of lighting apertin.es kid become indisponsable,and in sone:Italian buildings was carried to great excess, so that, what with the windows :nit] the external ornamentation, little space was left of naked walling. Now, the employment of window's, especially to such an extent, at once furnishes us with a feature of very great sin portanee, and it is questionable whether it is not of greater importance than that of columniation : it is at least equally if not more strongly marked. The two systems of reties. tration and columniation form two grand dist inetions in archi tectural design. and are in a certain sense antagonistic in principle, nor can they readily be made to harmonize together: Ibr fenestration either interferes w ith the effect aimed at by columniation, as in the case of a colonnade, where the simple and chaste effect produced by the repetition of a range of columns receding one behind the other, is marred and broken, and the unity of the composition destroyed ; or otherwise is reduces columniation to an inferior and secondary position as a mere means of decoration. to, in short, a mere accessory, as is evidenced in the use of engaged columns, and pilasters, and in the adoption of small columns, &c., the adornment of only portions of an edifice. The latter is the method resorted to by the Italians, and though it may be said with some rea son. that the co:fulmar-fenestrated is an anonymous style, and that the terms astylar and fenestrated ought in practiee to be SNIP )11 V molls, vet when we behold some of the beautiful struc tures rail •d in this style, we cannot yield ourselves entirely to this opinion. In our idea they may lawfully be combined when one is made clearly and distinctly an accessory to the other, and when the pre-eminence of the one is at once palpa ble and evident to the senses : but they may not be so employed N1 here they hold equally important positions in the same edifice, one or the other must be ostensibly predomi nant. The Italians have employed the orders as ornamental accessories, and have been in many instances eminently suc cessful, as far at least as regards the production of elegance and taste. in the design ; if' we were to criticise too severely, and enter into the question of the unity of design and con struction, we might not be so well able to vindicate the claims of this style ; it will not bear such rough.handling as the Pointed.
In some. instances, which are indeed the least removed from the classic in this respect, the entire edifice, or at least the principal portion of it, is comprised in one order, which is thus made to embrace t \\"() or more stories of the building, and the same number of ranges of apertures ; and sometimes the main body of the building is crowned by a single pedi ment. This is what some would have us call classical, or at least very nearly classical ; but Nye must confess we do not recognize the resemblance, and if there be a likeness, it is by no means a flattering one. This method would appear tons to be the first bungling attempt at adapting the ancient orders to the altered requirements of that age ; such a system can be termed neither the columniate.d, our the fenestrated, nor even a combination of the two, for there is no agreement or unity between the two principles so applied; you have them both together, it is true, but not in combination or unity : they are in open war, and, destroying each other's beauties, they are both spoiled—self-dest•oyed. The two systems arc
individually too prominent, they jar, and cannot blend together. Besides all this, it seems unnatural and ridiculous to comprise several distinct stories under one order ; and if it seems so in theory, it has certainly no less the appearance in practice.
This system, however, was fortunately by no means univet sa ; it was a more usual practice to give to each story its separate order, and this employment of different orders, or repetitions of the same order one above the other, in the several stories of a building, afibrds us another important feature of the style. This practice led to some other pecu liarities worthy of especial notice, amongst which may be noticed, that of abandoning all proportion of intercolllInnia lion; and spacing the columns according to the breadth of the piers, and the apertures between them. This again led to the abandonment of insulated columns, and the substitution of engaged columns of half or three-quarter projection ; the reason for which is evident, fin' if' insulated columns had been adopted, when placed at so great a distance front each other, they would have had an exceedingly tame and meagre effect, especially when raised tier above tier, But another altera tion was still requisite, for with half' or three-quarter columns, the entablature was made to project so funr from the face of the wall as to proauce the appearance at once of heaviness and weakness, the overhanging entablature seeming to have no suppm t between the widely separated columns. To obviate this inconsistency, the Italians fell into a still greater, by breaking the entablature over each column, and recessing it in the intercolumn. We say it greater inconsistency, for the nature and functions of the entablature tire thus entirely disregarded, but, as before observed, the designs of the Italians will not bear comparison with the requirements of construc tive science. This objection, however, was somewhat lessened by the introduction of pilasters in the place of columns. which, from their slight projection, allowed the entablature to lie continued without break or interruption. This was so far an improvement, but it w ill be noticed, that all this while, the columns and other divisions of the order were losing their natural character and oflive, :Ind had at last dwindled down to nothing better than aids to decoration. Thus, by their diminution in size and projection, and by their loss of con structive propriety. columns became of little signilicanee when compared with the windows and other apertures, which were often highly ca MI architraves and cornices, and sometimes with small columns in the jambs supporting an architrave and pedimental I10:1(1. which was either triangular or segmental. This method of decorating the windows was employed Where each story of the edifice was arranged as a separate order ; but not 'infrequently the order was entirely omitted, and columns employed only as decorations to aper tures, and often were dismissed altogether, the windows having an architrave dressing only, with cornice supported by ancones on either side of the architrave. These illustrate the triumph of fenestration over the combination of the two systems ; and if' the former do not excel in appearance, which we are somewhat inclined to think it does, it at least surpasses in consistency. We have fair specimens in London in the Reform Club and Bridgewater 'House, by Mr. Barry, as also of the other system in the Carlton, Conservative, and Army and Navy Club IIouses, all of' which, and several other excellent examples, are in close proximity to each other, and afford ample means of judging of their comparative merits.