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.
But 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 they 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.