THE BUILDING NEWS. 295
well; even dry technical descriptions, such as some of those which Mr. Street gives in his book on Spain, require that the writer be observant and attentive ; and, though, perhaps, to an ordinary reader, who had never seen the building, a purely technical description was of little use, it was invaluable to the student who made it, and who, recollecting years afterwards such and such a work, was able to turn to his notebook, and to find there exact details of the plan and disposition of the building, and of its principal dimensions and Inaterials, and some record of the impression it pro- duced on his mind. Asa specimen of the kind of notes referred to, Mr. Smith recommended his audience to consult the descriptions in Street’s “Brick and Marble Architecture of Italy,” or his papers on “Le Puy,” read at the Institute in January, 1861; or some of the notes in Mr. Petit’s books. The important points in such note-taking are to record facts accurately, and with a kind of graphic touch, and to record effects. One sometimes, in looking over one’s sketches, sees a detail or a composition with regard to which one would like to recall the effect which it produced on the spectator. Such details as the exact size of a moulding or a piece of carving, and its height above the eye, can often be got, and should be noted down, with re- marks as to whether work of that size and at that height looked weak or bold, insignificant or over done, or whether it was quite appropriate to its position. All such practical points as the surface of lighting space, compared to area in a well-lighted «oom or public gallery, should also be noted. Such notes and written descriptions were, like a sketch, far more serviceable if done complete on the building than if done afterwards at home. Some mode of referring to notes, indexing, paging, and dating, was desirable; the simpler the better, so that it be effectual and such as would not become burdensome to keep up. Mr. Smith said he had himself found that carefully dating every- thing and keeping his notes of buildings and his sketches in chronological order, helped him to look back very readily to any object which he had ever visited of which he had preserved memoranda. Sundry matters in practice should be carefully noted. Foremost among these came failures. Any feature of treatment or decoration which was mani- festly unsuccessful, and any piece of construction which failed, wholly or partially, should be carefully scutinised till the cause of the failure is found out, and then, in the words of the immortal Captain Cuttle, ‘When found make a note on.” The same thing was true ina less degree of successes, The reasons of success were often palpable enough on the drawings, but not always; and as a rule, when any- thing turned out well it was quite worth while to in- vestigate the reasons why and to keep a memorandum of them. Costand cubic contents of buildings were amongst themany practical points which should be earefully minuted whenever the information could be got with accuracy, and all the circumstances which went to influence cost should be looked into and a memorandum of them made. The more practical, terse, complete, and pointed allsuch memoranda and journals were kept the better. The writing of them would be of great advantage in giving habits of ob- servation and composition, and their future perusal would be of great service. Passing to the second part of his subject, Mr. Smith treated of what an architeet wrote with a view toits being read by those who did business with him—clients, tradesmen, brother architects, official and professional persons, and others. This included documents (such as specifications), memoranda, estimates, statements of accounts, reports, and correspondence. In all this writing the main result of remembering the reader ought to be that the writer would convey his meaning so thatit could not be misunderstood. In every busi- ness document success was attained only when the document was made so clear that mistake was impos- sible. His advice was: Always entertain the meanest opinion of your correspondent’s intellect, and take it for granted that if itis possible to make a blunder, he will make it ; and sacrifice everything, even gram- mar itself if necessary, to the rendering it impossible that this shouldhappen. Having given some simple, though not always attended to rules for conducting a correspondence, Mr. Smith said that as to the sub- stance of a letter, it should, if it was a reply to any other letter, commence with an acknowledgment of the letter, specifying its date. In official correspon- dence it was usual to recapitulate the whole of the contents of the letter replied to ; but this, though an excellent safeguard, was not necessary in ordinary correspondence, though it was to be commended in matters of considerable importance. The beginning once made, the fewest words possible, sufficient to state what had to be said, should be used, and so clearly as to be beyond the possibility of mistake; and in order to attain this end the word “ which” should be systematically excluded, and descriptions, appellations, &e., should be repeated any number of times necessary. The printed “memorandum” forms now so much used for short written messages were very useful, but as they were generally not signed they should never be accepted in place of a letter under any important circumstances. Such a memorandum, for instance, would be an unsatis- factory tender to execute work. The term “a niemorandum,” however, might mean something more important than one of these scraps of headed paper, and where an agreement had been come to or animportant conversation had been held, it was of great importance that either a letter or a memoran- dum should be drawn up, fully setting forth the cir- cumstances of case, and signed on the spot. Where this could not be done, it was an excellent rule, im- mediately after the interview, to write to the other party, giving an impression of the result arrived at, and requesting him to acknowledge its correctness or to point out any errors. In many cases, as, for ex- ample, where an agreement to reduce a tender was arrived at by an architect and builder together, after going through the work together and cutting it down, or where a price for some variation or ad- ditional work had been agreed upon, it was often of the greatest importance to be able to draw up swiftly and accurately a complete memorandum of the un- derstanding come to while both parties are together. Many a concession, made readily enough by a builder anxious to get to work, would seem unreason- able to the measuring survey or or estimating clerk who represented him, or to the man himself, when a year afterwards he was settling his accounts and desirous of making his charges as large as he could; and it might depend upon asingle word or a single letter in such a memorandum, whether or not the architect would obtain for his client the advantage that was promised him. Clear memoranda were also of great value as records of instructions received from clients. A careful man would always minute verbal instruc- tions of an important character as soon as he could after getting them, and if wise would transmit a copy of his memorandum to his client. Specifications and conditions of contract hardly came within the scope of this paper, but Mr. Smith gave a general hint that it was well to follow good precedents, taking care, however, to understand every word made use of and its force. A specification could not be too carefully prepared, butin the preparation of it it should be re- membered that one of two courses should be taken— i.e., either describe everything minutely, giving scantlings, numbers, dimensions, &e., or describe everything generally and comprehensively, leaving the figures on the drawings, the detail plans, and the instructions to settle minutie. Each plan had its advocates, and either would make a good business- like document, but a specification which was general in one place and minute in another was a faulty piece of work, and very likely to lead to misunderstandings. As to reports addressed to committees or clients, they should be confined, as arule, to simple statements of facts and the architect's advice upon them, and if any works were recommended, an estimate. Excel- lent specimens of architectural reports were to be found among the papers of Sir Christopher Wren and Sir Charles Barry. In all business writing the reader should never be forgotten. Passing to the third section of his subject—viz., writing for the public through the medium of the professional press—Mr. Smith said that here, again, it was of the utmost importance that the reader should be remembered, especially as this kind of writing was taken up voluntarily, and not from compulsion. Although he would not advise any man to take up the pen unless he had something to say, and could say it well and with pleasure and profit to himself as well as his reader, he did ask that some little con- sideration should be shown to those members of the profession who devoted part of their time to literary pursuits. It was too often the case that those who devoted their energies exclusively to designing and building looked with a feeling somewhat akin to contempt upon the architect who meddled with an inkstand. But our present system of life made special literature a matter of necessity if any special branch of art or practice was to live; and, what- ever the result on members of the profession might be, the result on the public appreciation of architec- ture would be disastrous if no more books were written on the subject, and if the architectural periodicals ceased to exist. Having briefly dwelt on the influence which the works of Sir Walter Scott, Rickman, Pugin, the Camden Society (notably the Ecclesiologist), Ruskin, Street, and Viollet le Duc, had exercised upon modern architecture, Mr. Smith alluded to the case of the new Law Courts as an illustration of the power of the press. It was known to all how a certain portion of the periodical press
threatened to endanger the position of the architect entrusted with that great work. It might be pre- sumed that Mr. Street’s Courts were now certain to be built, but nothing could show the influence of periodical literature more distinctly than the fact that so many persons were desirous to displace Mr. Street, not because they had formed an opinion upon the building—for they had had no opportunity of seeing the designs—but because a well-known writer like Mr. Fergusson expressed his dis- satisfaction with it in a letter to the Buwilder. There was, and must continue to be, a large lite- rature connected with architecture; books would be written, mainly intended for the general public to read; others addressed to the practitioners of the art, and the periodicals peculiarly devoted to it, as well as those relating to the arts generally, would influence at once the public and the profession. Once more, the writers of these works should re- member the readers. The writer who would catch the public ear had a difficult task to perform. Writing for a class, whether it was a profession or a section of the public, was comparatively easy. Such books as that of Viollet le Duc, were sure, if only good enough, to get readers; so were such works as, for example, Professor Kerr’s ‘‘ English Gentleman’s House.” To make a work of this sort prosper, it was requisite that the writer have special knowledge, and plenty of it, and put it unreservedly into his book. But to reach the general public upon any subject which was not a matter of vital importance, a writer should have something of that genius which compelled attention, or, in default of it, the tact and industry which so often made up a possible imitation of genius. Ruskin was a good example of the first; Fergusson of the second. For general readers, the manner was to the full as important as the matter. The writer who would really help to mould public or professional taste—arouse enthusiasm or guide it when it is roused—should have a thorough know- ledge of what he had to say, must speak from the depth of his heart, and with all the authority which deep learning, wide experience, or highly cultivated instinct could give him. As to special technical books, they were very useful, and there could hardly be too many of them, so long as they were realiy good, and published not solely nor even chiefly to exalt the writer, but to convey information. There was a large field to be oceupied as regarded special subjects, and while books on hospitals and houses had been rather overdone, there were a dozen first- class subjects entirely unappropriated. There was, for example, no good modern English book, which Mr. Smith was aware of, on theatres, on railway stations, on lunatic asylums, on markets, on warehouse buildings, or on factories. Moreover, there were many buildings in this country the individual merits of which deserved monographs, such as were constantly produced on the Continent. In writing for the periodical press it was especially essential to remember the reader, for there was nothing from which a man so ‘readily turned away as from a newspaper article which failed to interest him. Want of consideration for the reader was dis- played by most men not littératewrs by profession. There could be no doubt that to the writer the habit of occasionally composing a paper on a professional subject for the press was most beneficial. It strengthened the powers of observation, and the habit of description or argument, and it kept the mind active upon subjects such as otherwise might be neglected in the press of daily life. Probably, the best of all training for original composition was the writing of translations from a foreign tongue. The thoughts were given, but the choice of words and phrases was largely within the discretion of the translator. Although none of those present might live to write a really great book, he commended architectural writing as a matter to be engaged in with their best energies by those who had the peculiar gifts which enabled them to undertake it with success, and he claimed for it the respect and goodwill of those who, from whatever reason, re= frained from engaging in it. DISCUSSION. Mr. H. H. Sraynus considered that Mr. Roger Smith’s paper was one of the most valuable that had ever been read before the Association. He had often thought in reading books and papers that writers might bedivided into three classes: (1) Those who had something to say, and were able to say it—he included Mr. Smith in this category ; (2) those who had something to say and were not able to say it; and (3) those who had nothing to say and yet said it. He cordially agreed with the author in adyoca- ting the adoption by architects and other professional men of something like a system in the conduct of their correspondence; in fact, architects could not be too careful on this point, and to be successful in
