EDITORIAL

ARTICLES

W

E must confess that when we published Mr. Philip Norman's appeal to the Government to save Clifford's Inn, we had little hope that the appeal would be listened to; it is too much to expect an English Government to take any interest in a question of an artistic nature; in agreeing to ignore such questions the unanimity of political parties is wonderful. Nor does the English public really care about such matters. The appeal received considerable support in the press, but it was a support given by men who, whatever they themselves think, know well enough that an agitation for the preservation of an ancient building would only bore most of their readers. So Clifford's Inn has been sold, and sold at a ridiculously low price. It is some satisfaction to know that legal education, which condemned it to destruction, will profit little if at all by its sale, for the income derived from the purchase money can be no larger than could have been derived from the rents of the Inn under proper management. The end, however, is not yet, for the gentleman who now owns Clifford's Inn is happily not without appreciation of its artistic and historical interest; for the present, at anyrate, he will leave matters in statu quo, and all the tenants have been informed that they need not fear early ejection. Moreover we have every reason to believe that, if there were any movement to preserve the Inn, the present owner would be willing to part with his property at a very moderate premium on the sum of £100,000 that he paid for it. The London County Council-the only public authority in London that cares about such matters-has had its

The

eye on Clifford's Inn, and a committee of the Council only refrained from recommending its purchase from fear of the ratepayers. We would, however, appeal to the County Council to cast aside fear of the Philistines and reconsider the matter. Expert opinion in such matters holds that Clifford's Inn could be made, as it stands, to return £3,000 a year; its purchase, therefore, at a little more than £100,000 would involve little or no loss to the ratepayers. The County Council has done and is doing admirable work for the preservation of ancient buildings; it might well add to its laurels by acquiring Clifford's Inn for the citizens of London. case of Clifford's Inn raises the larger question of the preservation of ancient buildings generally. We in England pretend to be an artistic nation; we talk and write very much about art, and we all collect more or less works of art or imitations thereof; most of us try to paint pictures, and the world will soon be unable to contain the pictures that are painted. But there is one fact that brands us as hypocrites, the fact that Great Britain shares with Russia and Turkey the odious peculiarity of being without legislation of any kind for the protection of ancient buildings and other works of art such as is possessed to some degree by every other country in Europe, and by almost every State of the American Union. We have calmly looked on while amiable clergymen, restoring architects, and legal peers with a mania for bricks and mortar and more money than taste, have hacked, hewn, scraped and pulled to pieces the greatest architectural works of our forefathers; too many modern architects, when they are not engaged in copying the work of their predecessors, are engaged in destroying it. Though the legend of Cromwell's soldiers' still on the lips of the intelligent

The

pew-opener accounts for the havoc wrought Burlington in many an ancient church, the historian and Magazine, the antiquary know that to the sixteenth

Number

IV

and not the seventeenth century must that havoc be in the first place attributed, and the observer of recent history knows that the mischief worked by the iconoclast of the sixteenth century has been far exceeded by that worked by the restorer and the Gothic revivalist of the nineteenth. And if this has been done by persons who imagined themselves to be artistic and were actuated by the best possible motives, what has been the destruction wrought by those who made no profession of any motive but that of commercial advantage? Within the memory of the youngest among us, buildings of great artistic and historical interest have been ruthlessly swept away in London and in every other town in the kingdom, and the few that have been left are rapidly disappearing. There is no ¶ way of saving the remnant of our heritage but that of legislation; but we cannot honestly recommend the advocacy of such legislation to a minister or a party in need of an electioneering cry, and we are not sanguine as to the prospects of anything being done. Still, it may be interesting to some to learn what the despised foreigner has done in this respect; we take the information from a Parliamentary paper presented to the House of Commons on July 30, 1897.! ¶We will briefly summarize the facts given in this paper, referring those of our readers who wish for further information to the paper itself. In Austria there has existed for many years a permanent Imperial and Royal Commission for the investigation and preservation of artistic and historical monuments.' This Commission had, in 1897, direct rights only over monuments belonging to the State (in which churches are included); but it acted in concert with municipalities and learned societies, and

'Reports from Her Majesty's representatives abroad as to the statutory provisions existing in foreign countries for the preservation of historical buildings.' — Miscellaneous, No. 2 (1897).

promoted the formation of local societies to carry out its objects. No ancient monument coming within its scope can be touched without the sanction of the Commission. Since 1897 its powers have, we believe, been extended. Not only buildings, but objects of art and handicraft of every kind as well as manuscripts and archives, of any date up to the end of the eighteenth century, come within the scope of activity of the Commission, which is a consultative body advising the Minister of Public Worship and Education, who is the executive authority for these purposes.

In Bavaria, alterations to all monuments or buildings of historical or artistic importance (including churches) belonging to the State, municipality, or any endowed institution, have, since 1872, required the sanction of the Sovereign, who is advised by the Royal Commissioners of Public Buildings. The ecclesiastical authorities and even religious communities are prohibited from altering a church or dealing with its furniture without the consent of the Commissioners. ¶In Denmark there has been a Royal Commission with similar objects since 1807; ancient monuments are scheduled, and since 1873 the Royal Commission has had power to acquire them compulsorily if their owners will not take proper measures for their preservation. In France the Minister of Public Instruction and Fine Arts, who is advised by a Commission of Historical Monuments, has as drastic powers as the Danish Royal Commission; some 1,700 churches, castles, and other buildings (including buildings in private ownership) have been scheduled and classified, and cannot be destroyed, restored, repaired, or altered except with the approval of the Minister, who has power to expropriate private owners under certain circumstances. ¶Belgium has statutory provisions of a similar character; there a Royal Commission on Monuments was constituted so long ago as 1835, so that Belgium is second only to Denmark in this matter. The Commis

sion may schedule any building or ancient monument, and the scheduled building cannot be touched without the consent of the Commission, even if it is in private ownership. In Belgium, as in France and Denmark, grants of public money are given for the purchase and preservation of ancient monuments, and the Belgian municipalities are very zealous in the same direction. In Bruges, we understand, the façades of all the houses belong to the municipality, so that their preservation is secured, and also congruity in the case of new buildings. No object of art may legally be alienated or removed from a Belgian church; this law, however, is unfortunately still evaded to some extent. In Italy several laws have been passed, beginning with an edict of Cardinal Pacca for the old Papal States in 1820. The Minister of Public Instruction may, by a decree, declare any building a national monument, and the municipalities have large powers; works of art, as is well known, cannot legally be taken out of Italy, but this law is often evaded. ¶ In Greece the

powers of the State are perhaps more drastic Clifford's Inn than anywhere else. Even antique works of and the art in private collections are considered as Protection national property in a sense and their owner of Ancient can be punished for injuring them; if the Buildings owner of an ancient building attempts to demolish it or refuses to keep it in repair, the State may expropriate him. ¶ Holland, Prussia, Saxony, Spain, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, and many American States have provisions of a more or less stringent character with the same purpose. But we need not now go further into details; the whole of the facts will be found in the Parliamentary paper, and we have given enough of them to show how far behind every other civilized country England is in this matter. The protection of monuments of the past which Denmark has had for nearly a century and Belgium for nearly seventy years we have not yet thought of. Surely the time has come to wipe out this reproach; until it is wiped out let us have done with the hypocritical claim that we are an artistic people.

N the April number of THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE We stated that it was our intention not to exclude from the Magazine works of art likely to be of interest to the student and collector because they happened to be in the hands of dealers. The policy of including objects belonging to dealers has been adversely criticized by friends who have the interests of the Magazine at heart; we therefore think it well to refer again to the matter, although the purpose of our decision was, as it seems to us, clearly enough stated in the April number. Suggestions have, it seems, been made in certain quarters that some corrupt or at least commercial arrange

ment with the dealers concerned is accountable for the publication in the Magazine of objects belonging to them. Such Such suggestions we may pass over, for they are not and will not be credited by anyone whose opinion need concern us. But we owe it to the friendly critics who are concerned for the welfare of the Magazine, and anxious that it should not be affected even by a breath of suspicion, to state our position quite frankly. In the first place we may say that we entirely sympathize with their point of view, and we recognize as fully as they do the harm that has been done to artistic enterprises-literary and otherwise -by commercial entanglements, and, in the case of periodicals, by a too intimate rela

The

tion between the advertisement and editoBurlington rial pages. So much has this been the Magazine, case that we are not surprised at the alarm Number which is felt by some of our friends lest IV even a suspicion of a similar tendency should attach to a periodical in the success of which they are, we are glad to know, keenly interested. But we would point out that in such cases as those to which we have referred far more subtle methods are resorted to than that of frankly publishing a work of art that may happen to be for the time in the hands of a dealer ; a little reflection will convince anyone that an Editor of a periodical ostensibly devoted to art, if he wishes-to put it quite plainly -to puff the goods of this or that individual, does not set about it in so palpable a way as that of publishing without subterfuge objects which are frankly stated to be in the possession of the individual or individuals whom it is desired to advertise. It is the very purity of our motives that has enabled us to take a course the boldness of which we do not for a moment deny. Nor must it be supposed that the publication of works of art in their possession is necessarily desired by the dealers themselves; on the contrary, as is well known to every one with experience in these matters, the idiosyncrasies of collectors are such that in many cases a dealer who has a fine work of art in his possession does not wish it to be generally known. We have in some cases had considerable difficulty in inducing dealers to allow their property to be reproduced, and we will go so far as to say that, strange as it may seem to the purist in these matters, we believe that some of them are really actuated by a desire to assist the study of art. It would be false modesty on our part to affect to believe that publication of a work of art in THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE is injurious to the owner, whether dealer or collector; we are willing to admit that such publication may, on the contrary, be advantageous to the owner of the work of art published.

But, surely, that is not the question to be considered; the only question, it seems to us, is whether the work of art is likely to be of interest to readers of THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE and of value students. This is, at any rate, the only question that we have taken into consideration; and we have felt that if any particular work of art is of interest to our readers, and particularly to those who make a special study of the branch of art concerned, we ought not to hesitate to publish it merely because it happens to be in the hands of a dealer. Is there not after all just a suspicion of cant in this squeamishness about the publication of pictures or other objects belonging to dealers? Even private collectors have, we believe, been known to sell objects out of their collections, and, so far as our information goes, they do not invariably sell them at a loss; indeed, when one comes to define the boundary between collecting and dealing one finds a considerable difficulty in doing so with exactitude; the border country between the two is very wide in extent and very hazy. We have heard of cases in which private collectors, who would not for the world be considered to be dealers, have written anonymously in a periodical about objects in their own possession and then put them up to auction with a quotation from their own article in the catalogue. Any such practice as that we shall certainly discourage or rather repress; these are difficulties which beset the path of an editor of an art periodical. But if we are to be deterred by such difficulties it will end in our being afraid to publish any work of art in case we haply enhance its value, and thus indirectly do a service to its owner. Let us restate more fully the case which we have already stated shortly in the April number of this Magazine. At any given time there are in the hands of London dealers not a few pictures which are of profound interest to all students of art, and which may indeed throw light on vexed problems and assist in their solution.