Survival of the Fittest: The Romanesque Revival, Natural Selection, and Nineteenth Century Natural History Museums

Notes

• Jeremy Bentham: Le. Panoptique, Précédé de l'Oeil du Pouvoir Paris : Belford . Much of the analyses of the 1980s and 1990s relied on the theories of Michel Foucault, and utilized methods similar to those he articulated in 1977.
   Google Scholar
• Buildings and Power, Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modem Building Types London & New York : Routledge . Examples include Thomas A Markus, “Visible Knowledge”, 1993, pp 171–212; and Carol Duncan & Allan Wallach, “The Universal Survey Museum”, Art History, 3, 4 (December 1980): 448–469.
   Google Scholar
• For example, Susan Sheets-Pyenson, “Cathedrals of Science: The Development of Colonial Natural History Museums during the late-nineteenth century”, History of Science, 25 (1986): 279–300; John Peponis & Jenny Hedin, “The layout of theories in the National History Museum,” 9H, 3 (1982): 21–25; and Carla Yanni, “Divine Display or Secular Science, Defining Nature at the Natural History Museum in London”, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 55, 3 (September 1996): 276–299.
   Google Scholar
• Calvert Vaux, Architect and Planner New York : Ink . These rudimentary relationships did, of course, exist. Indeed there are many examples of this classical-medieval dichotomy, for instance at Oxford, the art and archaeology Ashmolean Museum & Taylorian Institution (Charles R Cockerell, 1839–45) is Italian late-Renaissance, while the scientific University Museum (Deane & Woodward, 1855–60) is Venetian Gothic. Similarly London placed archaeological collections in the Greek-Revival British Museum (Robert Smirke, 1823–47), and high art in the classical National Gallery (William Wilkins, 1834–38), and Sydney displayed its major art collection in the National Gallery of New South Wales (now Art Gallery of NSW, by Walter Liberty Vernon, 1904–09); in both cities, moreover, the natural sciences were housed in Romanesque Revival museums. New York City's American Museum of Natural History and Metropolitan Museum of Art also conform to this pattern. There, however, the relationship was slightly more complex. Initially the New York museums were very similar, beginning in 1871 when both museums jointly petitioned the state legislature for land and buildings to display their collections. The Avenue, while the Natural History Museum was given a site (Manhattan Square) adjacent to Central Park at West 79th Street. The two museums, therefore, came into being as pendants on either side of the Park, though ‘The Met’ was actually in the Park and on the affluent side of town. Both museums originally were built to designs by Calvert Vaux & J W Mould (American Museum of Natural History, 1872–1877; ‘The Met’, 1874–1880); and, although it initially appears to undermiue my comparison, both museums were modest Gothic-Revival buildings (although William Alex distinguishes between the two m 1994, p 24; deeming ‘The Met’, Victorian Gothic; the American Museum of Natural History, Venetian). Within six years of completion, however, both museums needed to be expanded. Duly ‘The Met’ was wrapped in classical garb by Theodore Weston (1888), Richard Morris Hunt & George B Post (1895–1902), and McKim, Mead & White (1906), leaving it a monumental Beaux-Arts pile with its earlier medieval design totally hidden from view. In comparison the American Museum of Natural History was redesigned as a grand Romanesque Revival palace by J C Cady (1888) and although the design was never fully completed, by 1899 a vast Romanesque facade, which exists to this day, stretched along West 77th Street. (The American Museum of Natural History's classical entrance on Central Park West was only added by Trowbridge & Livingston between 1924–1933, and completed by John RussellPópe in 1936).
   Google Scholar
• This is not to say the Romanesque Revival was not used for other types of museums, but it was rare. The first instance of a museum decorated in a Romanesque Revival manner was probably the Musée des Monuments français, Paris (1793–1816), which held ecclesiastical objects confiscated from the Church. The interiors of a number of rooms housing medieval sculpture were decorated by Alexandre Lenoir in the Romanesque style, no doubt chosen for its medieval associations. For a description of the museum see Francois Benoit, L'Art français dans la Revolution et L'Empire, Paris, 1897, pp 138–139. Only two other Romanesque Revival high-art museums ever seem to have been mooted. One designed by Daniel Buriiham for Chicago in 1892 was never built. The other, the Art Museum in Eden Park, Cincinnati, Ohio, by James W McLaughlin, was built in 1894, although the museum's collection at the time included objects from local Native American tribes. The peculiarity of the Eden Park Museum was also noted by Montgomery Schuyler in “The Building of Cincinnati”, Architectural Record, 26, 30, (1911): 364.
   Google Scholar
• Preliminary Catalogue Honolulu : Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum . Not all these museums were dedicated solely to natural history. The Smithsonian had a wide-ranging scientific charter, although the building did include a designated museum space, and often the other museums' Natural History collections were combined with additional scientific disciplines. A number also linked Natural History with commerce, indeed Sheets-Pyenson, “Cathedrals of Science”, has noted that many colonial museums emphasized the economic benefits that could be derived from the various objects they collected (this in particular was emphasized in the charter of the Sydney Technological Museum). Similarly, the Bishop Museum was. technically a “Museum of Polynesian Ethnology and Natural History”, and the museum's 1892, part 1, p 8, contains comments by the curator, William T Brigham, indicating the commercial potential of the many natural materials displayed in the museum; Brigham also designated the collection, “Natural History and Products.”
   Google Scholar
• A further contender for this group might be the Queensland Museum in Brisbane (by George H M Addison, 1891) which is devoid of any classical motifs and sports some Romanesque Revival features such as massive round arches set within its bands of red and cream (blood and bandage) brickwork. The colouring and style of its brickwork, however, tends to give it a ‘Queen-Anne’ air. Although as Myra D Orth noted in ‘The Influence of the “American Romanesque” in Australia’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 24, 1 (March 1975): 5, in Australia “the half-round arch, preferably rusticated, was enough to transform Shaw into Richardson.”
   Google Scholar
• Encyclopedia of Architectural Terms. Wimbledon : Donhead . The terms Romanesque and Romanesque Revival are often imprecise. Issues regarding definitions of the Romanesque (which ran the gamut from Lombardie to Norman, and Rhenish to Byzantine) will be discussed later in this article; but here it is worth noting the various terms used to describe the Romanesque Revival. The exact moment when the conceptual shift occurred between just noticing that certain contemporary nineteenth-century buildings were inclnding medieval-Romanesque motifs, to actually discerning a distinct Romanesque Revival style, is difficult to locate. A comprehension of a distinct revivalist style, however, was definitely in place by the 1880s, and Montgomery Schuyler wrote of the specific style in “The Romanesqne Revival in America”, Architectural Record, 1, 1 (October-December 1891): 151–198. The most obvious early example of a cognisant Romanesque Revivalist style, however, was that associated with the American architect H H Richardson (Carol Meeks noted in “Romanesque before Richardson in the United States”, Art Bulletin, 25, 1 (March 1953): 17–33, that after 1880 the architectural profession recognised a discernible Richardsonian style; this style was marked by heavy rustication, deep-set windows, and large dominant arches). Alfred Waterhouse may also be said to have begun a personal Romanesque Revival style, although contemporary critics rarely nsed his name as a descriptive term, despite the efforts of Australian critic, E Wilson Dobbs, who wrote of the “Waterhouse-Normanesque” in The Australasian Builders' and Contractors' News (11 June 1892): 401. In Australia during the 1890s the most commonly used nomenclature to describe the discernible revival style was “American Romanesque.” The issue of when the concept of a Romanesque Revival first appeared has been further complicated in the late-twentieth century as a number of authors have allied the beginning of the Romanesque Revival with the birth of the German Rundbogenstil (round-arched style); see for example, Kathleen Curran, “The German Rundbogenstil and Reflections on the American Round-Arched Style”, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 47, 4 (December 1988): 351–373, and her more recent, “The Romanesque Revival, Mural Painting, and Protestant Patronage in America”, Art Bulletin, 81,4 (December 1999): 693–722. In the later article Curran actually defines The Rundbogenstil as “a contemporary term given to the revival of pre-Gothic medieval architecture centering on the Romanesque” (p 693). Yet the term Rundbogenstil was first coined in 1828 by H Hübsch and used to describe the buildings of Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Leo von Klenze and Friedrich von Gärtner, most of which were classical in appearance. (The more famous Rundbogenstil buildings were von Klenze's Ministry of War, 1826–30, and Residenz, Königsbau, Munich 1826–35; von Gartner's Bavarian State Library, 1832–43; and Schinkel's Bauakademie in Berlin, 1831–36; all of which are composed of large symmetrical blocks and lack any feature specific to medieval Romanesque decoration). Therefore it is difficult to easily equate The Rundbogenstil with the medievalising Romanesque Revival. Moreover, two recent, and commonly held definitions refute a solely-medievalist definition of The Rundbogenstil (J S Curl, 1992, p 272; and J Lever & J Harris, Illustrated Dictionary of Architecture, London: Faber & Faber, 1993, p 34); they refer to the style as eclectic, comprising Early Christian, Romanesque/Byzantine, and Quattrocento or proto-Renaissance Italian motifs. No matter the confusion arising from these competing definitions (a quandary further exacerbated by James O'Gorman classifying a number of buildings by Richardson as Rundbogenstil, see his H H Richardson, Architectural Forms for an American Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp 31–38) the Romanesque Revival did become a recognisable style and viable design option for architects during the last half of the nineteenth century.
   Google Scholar
• The Castle, An Illustrated History of the Smithsonian Building Washington & London : Smithsonian Institution Press . See Robert Dale Qwen to David Dale Owen, August 15 1845, p 2 in “Correspondence Explanatory of the Details of a Plan of Buildings for a Smithsonian Institution Prepared by David Dale Owen, MD, and Robert Dale Owen,” New Harmony, Indiana: Workingmen's Institute; reprinted in Cynthia R Field, Richard E Stamm, & Heather P Ewing, 1993, p 159, note 5.
   Google Scholar
• Hints on Public Architecture New York & London : Putnam . There is, however, an extraordinary document that was produced after the selection was made. Roben Dale Owen's 1849 was produced in reaction to the “negative public opinion and architectural furor [sic]” that followed the choice of Renwick's design (Cynthia R Field, “Introduction” to the 1978 facsimile, New York: Da, Capo Press). Hints is a remarkable and insightful example of the type of scholarly erudition combined with extreme pedantry that could accompany nineteenth-century architectural analysis. The book is not so much a defense of, what Owen precisely termed the building's neo-Norman design, but a justification of every separate feature and motif. Indeed it is so encrusted with detail that it is more an apologia for each of the Smithsonian's buttresses, windows, doors, towers etc than a presentation of a clear, singular thesis. While the design's “American character and…association with collegiate institutions” (Field et al, The Castle, p 19) are mentioned, the latter attribute is linked in fact to the neo-Norman's Gothic qualities (Owen, Hints, pp 84–85 & 97–98). Primarily the text is an amalgam of items, which is as much about the defects of classical architecture as it is about the merits of the Norman, and is so weighed down with detail, and on occasions contradictions, that it is difficult to extract a succinct, over-arching thesis, except that the author believes the neo-Norman is an excellent choice for the Smithsonian's foundation building. Overall the book suggests an idiosyncratic form of architectural assessment exemplified by Owen's own test for judging the fitness of archaic architectural motifs, that is, whether an historical feature was “a merit, a whim, or an offence; a merit, [being] when the foreign feature introduced is demanded by utility, harmonizes with the spirit of the style upon which it is engrafted, adds a new beauty or corrects an old defect; a whim, when the innovation is a mere fanciful variety, adding nothing of useful, or graceful, or appropriate, beyond what the original details of the style sufficed to supply; and an offence, when the exotic is transplanted into a soil unsuited to its growth; when the anachronism produces incongruity, not conventional merely, but natural and inherent.” (Owen, Hints, p 91).
   Google Scholar
• 1887 . A General Guide to the British Museum. London : Museum of Natural History . Even Alfred Waterhouse's own pamphlet, gives no indication as to why the Romanesque style was chosen.
   Google Scholar
• The Smithsonian Institution: journals of the Board of Regents, reports of committees, statistics, etc. Washington DC : Smithsonian Institution . The usual method of selecting a design for a museum was to initially choose an architect or architectural firm, and then accept or reject the plans submitted. The supposed exception to this process was the Smithsonian Institution, whose afore-mentioned building committee in 1846 visited various architects practicing in the north-eastern states, including the successful designer, James Renwick Jr. But as already observed in Note 10, Renwick's design had already been decided upon before the committee felt obliged to justify their selection. Information pertaining to the selection process can be gleaned from William J Rhees (ed), 1879. From 1850 the evolution of the Smithsonian Building is recorded in The Annual Report of the Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. The documentation of London's Natural History Museum provides little evidence concerning why the Romanesque was chosen. What was to become the Natural History Museum began as a number of Natural History departments within the British Museum (the Natural History Museum only gained its own trustees in 1963). Information pertaining to the establishment of the separate museum is found in the Trustee's Reports held at the British Museum in Bloomsbury. In 1860 the British Museum trustees voted to remove the natural history components of their collection to the control of the 1851 Exhibition Commissioners in South Kensington who oversaw the Natural History Museum until 1882. Following this date the Natural History Museum produced its own reports. Similarly the minutes of the New York museum shed little light on why the Romanesque style was chosen; The Minutes of the American Museum of Natural History, 1885–90, for 22 December 1.887, merely note that it “was resolved that the architect of the new museum is to be Josiah Cleveland Cady” and that he would “prepare plans under the direction of the Board”, and that a “set of plans be presented for inspection by the trustees.” No mention of the museum's specific style appears in the minutes; although an unusual reference to the American Museum of Natural History's style was made at the opening ceremony of the initial stage of Cady's wing, when the Right Reverend Henry C Potter contrasted the new museum's “permanent” style with the “ephemeral” style of Chicago architecture. (See American Museum of Natural History, Annual Report for 1892, New York, 1893, p 35). The reports and “memoirs” of the Bishop Museum also fail to indicate why the Romanesque style was chosen (again, The Reports of the Directors of the Kamehameha Schools and Bernice P Bishop Museum merely record the Trustees choice of San Franciscan architect, William F Smith of the firm Smith & Freeman). Nor do the records of the New South Wales Department of Public Instruction, the body who oversaw the construction of the Sydney Technological Museum, give any indication as to why the Romanesque was preferred (see Box PI 189, Papers of the NSW Department of Education, held Mitchell Library, Sydney). The Annual Reports of the Horniman Museum are just as obtuse, merely noting that “Mr C. Harrison Townsend, FRIBA, was commissioned to prepare the plans for a new museum,”
   Google Scholar
• Girouard , Mark . “ Seven Victorian Architects ” . In Alfred Waterhouse and the Natural History Museum London : Thames & Hudson . London; Natural History Museum, 1981, p 32; and Yanni, “Divine Display”, p 295. Unfortunately neither Girouard nor Yanni precisely reference the director, Sir Richard Owen's desire for animals to be incorporated in the design. I have been unable to confirm any such request made by Owen in his papers or the Minutes of the British Museum or Natural History Museum. Jane Fawcett, however, in 1976, p 111, has also argued that Waterhouse chose the Romanesque because he needed to incorporate naturalistic details.
   Google Scholar
• 1982 . Ruskinian Gothic, the Architecture öf Dearn and Woodward, 1845–1861 Princeton NJ : Princeton University Press . For a detailed discussion of the Oxford Museum see Eve Blau, chapter 3.
   Google Scholar
• In New York a similar refinement was added to the deployment of animal motifs. At the American Museum of Natural History zoological decoration was limited to depictions of only one type of bird, the one found on the coat of arms, the American bald-headed eagle. Numerous identical statues of eagles sweep around the top of the corner towers, the highest point of the museum, and from their eyrie constitute a reassuring emblematic presence of ceaseless nationalist surveillance. This particular nationalistic form of zoological ornamentation was linked to the beginnings of the movement (which would culminate in the policy of “Americanization”) that prevailed in fm-de-siècle New York, and which were cultivated as a bulwark against new waves of immigration from southern and eastern Europe.
   Google Scholar
• On the Origins of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life London : Murray . Charles Darwin, 1859; and Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Biology, 2 volumes, London: Williams & Norgate, 1864–67, the latter being a study of the “social institutions of various societies, both primitive and civilised.” Spencer transformed Darwinian theory into a social doctrine and coined the phrase, ‘survival of the fittest.’ See Michael R Rose, “Society: Ideology as Biology”, Darwin's Spectre. Evolutionary Biology in thé Modern World, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998, pp 184–201.
   Google Scholar
• The Bishop Museum even extended the notion of ethnography (the scientific description of human races and cultures), giving it an evolutionary gloss, by its use of the term ‘ethnology’ (the comparative study of peoples).
   Google Scholar
• The Rise of American Architecture New York : Praeger . For a discussion of the American Museum of Natural History's curators of zoology and geology and their role in the designing of the museum; as well as the museum building's relationship to Olmstead's “natural” design for Central Park, see A Fein, “The American City: The Ideal and the Real”, in Edgar Kaufmann Jr (ed), London: Pall Mall Press, 1970, pp 87–90.
   Google Scholar
• Krauss , R . “Preying on the Primitive” . Art and Text , 17 (1985): 61.
   Google Scholar
• A Time for a Museum: The History of the Queensland Museum 1862–1986 Brisbane : Queensland Museum . The collection sent to London in 1871 was organised by the famous colonial Australian ethnographer, Richard Daintree, and is discussed in Patricia Maher, 1986, p 56.
   Google Scholar
• This evolutionary conception of the natural world influenced the general arrangement of most of these museums collections. Usually each group of species—reptiles, birds, mammals, etc—was separately categorised and arranged from the least developed to the most advanced.
   Google Scholar
• 1986 . Dinosaurs in the Attic, An excursion into the American Museum of Natural History New York : St Martin's Press . The Museum's president, Morris K Jesup, specifically sent Boas to test the theory that the natives of North America had entered the New World from north-eastern Siberia across the Bering Straits. At the time, the origin of Native Americans was one of the great unsettled questions of ethnography. Some scientists identified them with one or other of the tribes of Asia or the South Pacific, while others insisted they were culturally and racially independent of the Old World. Boas believed native-Americans had crossed over from east Asia, and to prove this theory explored and studied the cultures of the Inuits of North America and the aborigines of eastern Siberia. See Douglas J Preston, p 25
   Google Scholar
• Discussions in Contemporary Culture Seattle : Bay Press . Clifford, James, “Of Other Peoples, The Savage Paradigm”, in Hal Foster (ed), 1987, pp 122.
   Google Scholar
• Schuyler, “The Building of Cincinnati”, p 352, when discussing the development of the Richardsonian Romanesque, directly linked it to “natural” evolution and “the memory of Darwin.”
   Google Scholar
• Animals and Architecture London : H Evelyn . Exotic Asian architecture could not be totally discounted as an option for Natural History museums, especially as a precedent existed in many western zoological gardens where Mogul and Moorish architectural forms were often included. For a discussion of these buildings beginning with George-Durant's Egyptian and Moorish menagerie of 1820 at Tong, Shropshire, see David Hancocks, 197.1, p 98.
   Google Scholar
• This was in marked contrast to the Gothic Revival, which Michael Hall has recently noted, was after 1850 “predicated on ideas of development, which [were] interpreted in terms of progressive modernity”. Michael Hall, “What Victorian Churches Mean? Symbolism and Sacramentalism in Anglican Church Architecture, 1850 70”, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 59, 1, (March 2000): 80.
   Google Scholar
• A History of the Gothic Revival London : Longmans . The differing number of publications about the two nineteenth-century medieval revivals is astonishing. There is no comprehensive text about the Romanesque Revival. Books about the Gothic Revival, however, increase exponentially: Charles Eastlake, 1872; Kenneth Clark, The Gothic Revival: an essay in taste, London: Constable, 1928; Georg Germann, The Gothic Revival in Europe and Britain: sources, influences, ideas, (translation by G Onn), London: Lund Humphries, 1972; James Macaulay, The Gothic Revival, 1745–1845, Glasgow: Blackie & Sons, 1975; Gothick, 1720–1840, Exhibition Catalogue, Brighton: Royal Pavilion, Art Gallery & Museum, 1975; Michael McCarthy, The Origins of the Gothic Revival, New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1987; and Megan Aldrich, Gothic Revival, London: Phaidon, 1992. Numerous texts also chronicle the Gothic Revival in specific locations. For example: Michael J. Lewis, The Politics of the German Gothic Revival: August Reichensperger, Cambridge MA; MIT Press, 1993; Phoebe Stanton, The Gothic Revival and American Church Architecture, An Episode in Taste, 1840–56, Baltimore, 1968; Wayne Andrews, American Gothic. Its origins, its trials, its triumphs, New York: Vintage Books, 1975; Katherine S Howe & David B Warren, The Gothic Revival in America, 1830–1870, Exhibition Catalogue, Houston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1976; and Joan Kerr, Colonial Gothic: the Gothic Revival in New South Wales, 1800–1850, Sydney: Elizabeth Bay House Trust. 1979.
   Google Scholar
• Anglican Church Architecture London : J H Parker . Even when the Romanesque was seen in a positive light, it was often also tainted. For instance when recommended for church architecture, it was usually only fit for churches built in rural or rustic areas. See George Ernest Hamilton, Design for Rural Churches, London, 1836; and James Barr, 1842, p 77. Only recently have certain features of Romanesque Revival ecclesiastical architecture been seen in an unashamedly positive light; notably Kathleen Curran, “The Romanesque Revival, Mural Painting, and Protestant Patronage in America”, Art Bulletin, 81, 4 (December 1999): 693–722, where the author argues that the characteristic wall treatments afforded by Romanesque Revival churches, with their relatively large uninterrupted surfaces, were particularly sympathetic to the incorporation of mural painting.
   Google Scholar
• 1992 . Romanesque Architectural Criticism, A Prehistory Cambridge & New York : Cambridge University Press . Tina Bizzarro
   Google Scholar
• The Works of Alexander Pope Esq; in nine volumes complete with his last corrections, additions and improvements London : Printed for J & P Knapton . William Warburton (ed), H Lintot, R Tonson & S Draper, 1751, Vol III, p 266.
   Google Scholar
• Encyclopaedia Britannica, Edinburgh: Bell & Macfarquhar, 1797 [3rd edition], vol II, p 221.
   Google Scholar
• Gunn , W . An inquiry into the Origin and Influence of Gothic Architecture London : Sold by Longman . Hurst, Rees, Orme & Brown, 1819, p 4.
   Google Scholar
• Gunn . Origin and Influence of Gothic Architecture 6
   Google Scholar
• Gunn . Origin and Influence of Gothic Architecture 80
   Google Scholar
• 1843 . The Symbolism of Churches and Ornament: A Translation of the First Book of the Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, Written by William Durandus, Sometime Bishop of Mende Leeds : T W Green . The Ecclesiologists argued that Gothic architecture had an intrinsic relationship to the liturgical and symbolic functions of religious services. In a more specific sense, and certainly in the eyes of the Ecclesiologists themselves, Ecclesiology proposed a science of church architecture, a science, moreover, based on a careful and exhaustive examination of original Gothic buildings. This science was called “sacramentality”, that is to say the direct relationship between the church building and the service of worship. “Sacramentality” was a term coined by the Cambridge Camden Society's first chairman, John Mason Neale, and first secretary, Benjamin Webb (and was outlined in). The authors argued that “sacramentality” was a quality that was defined as “the idea that, by the outward and visual form, is signified something inward and spiritual; that the material fabric symbolises, embodies, figures, represents, expresses, answers to, some abstract meaning.” Following from this the authors then argued that the style most appropriate for new churches was the Gothic.
   Google Scholar
• The Ecclesiologist, 1, 1 (November, 1841): 5.
   Google Scholar
• The British Society and New York societies were also linked in their belief that the Gothic style was to be principally reserved for Anglican churches or their US equivalent, Protestant Episcopal churches. Indeed, many American Ecclesiologists thought the Gothic should be restricted to Episcopalian churches.
   Google Scholar
• The Romanesque was also recommended by non-conformist religions for frontier societies. In 1853 the Congregationalists of New York published A Book of Plans for Churches and Parsonages, which also argued that the weighty forms of the Romanesque were particularly suited to the flat prairie (The prairie at that time constituted the frontier). Even those who uphold the sophistication of the Romanesque Revival in the United States, such as Curran, “Romanesque Revival, Mural Painting”, p 705, concede that it initially developed in “a frontier backwater” like Maine.
   Google Scholar
• Author's emphasis. Warburton, The Works of Alexander Pope Esq, Vol III, p 266.
   Google Scholar
• The gridding of South-Kensington introduced London to a form of town planning that increasingly typified national capitals, as seen in L'Enfant's 1792 plan for Washington DC, and Haussman's 1853 design for Paris. These plans also emphasised the isolated monument within the city grid.
   Google Scholar
• Alfred Waterhouse, 1830–1905: biography of a practice Oxford : Clarendon Press . Girouard, Waterhouse and the Natural History Museum, p 42, also linked Waterhouse's design to German examples, specifically the entrance towers to Liebfrauen Kirche at Andermach, the entrance portal to Gnadenpforte at Bamberg, and the “chapel spaces” to St Gereon, Cologne. The Museum hall's pairs of towers at both ends give further weight to imperial pretensions; such pairs of towers are found at certain German cathedrals, notably Worms, which during the nineteenth century was restored by protagonists of the nascent German Imperial Reich in an attempt to symbolically link the new Reich to the medieval-Germanic Hohenstaufen Empire. Waterhouse visited these sites many times during the 1860s (for details of these trips see Colin Cumming & Prudence Waterhouse, 1992).
   Google Scholar
• It should be noted that the Technological Museum underwent a number of name changes. The collection began in the 1880s as the Technological, Industrial & Sanitary Museum; when the new museum opened it was called the Technological Museum; changing its name again in the late 1940s to the Museum of Applied Arts & Sciences. In 1983 it gained its current nomenclature, the Powerhouse Museum. See Charles Pickett, “The ‘Old’ Museum”, Powerline: the quarterly magazine for Powerhouse members, (Summer 1993–1994): 10–11.
   Google Scholar
• The Year Book of Australia London : Kegan . See E Wilson Dobbs's annual essays, “Architectural Progress in Australia” in Paul, Trench & Co, Sydney: The Year Book of Australia Publishing Co, 1892–1898; C A Nicholson in “Notes on Australian Architecture”, Architectural Review, 3 (December-May 1896–97): 104, deemed the museum and other Australian Romanesque buildings, “Yankee Romanesque”; while James Barnet positioned the museum in the American tradition m “Architectural Works in Sydney, New South Wales, 1788–1899”, Royal Institute of British Architects Journal, 6, 3 (1899): 505–517.
   Google Scholar
• Architect Extraordinary: The Life and Work of John Horbury Hunt 1838–1904 Melbourne : Cassell Australia . J M Freeland, 1970, p 33.
   Google Scholar
• American Architecture comes of Age Cambridge , Massachusetts : MIT Press . The Homiman's American features have been catalogued by Robert Koch, “American Influences Abroad, 1886 and Later”, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 18 (March 1959): 66–69; and Leonard Eatou, 1972, p 29.
   Google Scholar
• The Builder, 82, 3079 (8 February 1902): 135, stated that the Horniman Museum “in particular shows the effects of the interest Townsend…took in the work of Henry Hobson Richardson.”
   Google Scholar
• “Letter from J H Maiden to the Superintendent of Technical Education 1893“, MRS 132, held Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences Archives.
   Google Scholar