1869.1 Architectural Influences. 701 There is another matter, which we desire to draw attention to, before quitting this uninviting subject, for the present. It is this : — In laying out the " diagrams" and " instructions" for com- petitors, the unfortunate architect, who accepts these " bonds " as final and con- clusive, will find himself sadly mis aken, for they are seldom or never adhered to. We have a personal recollection of a requirement, once laid on a large num- ber of competing architects, that the principal fronts of a proposed public building, of great extent, should be placed on a Northern street ; and lo, the prize was carried off by a daring inno- vator, who, for private reasons, best known to himself, reversed the edict ; and made the Southern street the grand front location. Was there no secret understanding in this contumacy ? No doubt, man}' of our readers have personal recollections similar to this ; and we only advert to the fact now, to show how utterly false and unreliable are these " invitations" to achitects, to spend time and money foolishly, if not stupidly. ARCHITECTURAL INFLUENCES. By T. H. Williams. TO the man who goes through life I with his eyes open to the singu- i rarities with which he is surrounded, and who is cognizant of the " little " wonders of the world, as well as of the " great " ones, it is a matter of amaze- ment that no two faces on the Globe are precisely alike. They may bear strong resemblances ; may when viewed separately, appear to be similar, yet a close inspection reveals the difference in the expression of some feature, which materially alters the face. A line, a wrinkle, a shadow, — the elevation of an eyebrow, the distention of a nostril; — any of these is sufficient to change the whole expression of a countenance, w r hich might else be regarded as the counterpart of some other face. So also with the infinite variety of architectural styles which confront one in the course of travel. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that no two build- ings are alike, for the slight variation in the tastes of the constructor, when worked into and through the intricacies of a building, are amply sufficient to change the tout ensemble, and render its likeness to any other building compara- tively slight. It may be asked, and with much show of reason, whether we have (in this country especially) any edifices built in accordance with the rules of a pure style of Architecture, and whether the very fact of taste being admitted in the construction, does not destroy the possibility of our possessing pure styles. The innovations thus made, while they undoubtedly give us a spice of varict}', and perhaps tend to relieve a city of much tiresome monotony in its aspect, must also result in the produc- tion of what might be termed mongrels of art, to which no firt-student, or no lover of pure taste can give his unquali- fied sanction, yet the question arises whether it would be wise to attempt to eradicate this sj'stem, or rather want of system in our American communities, and whether, if we should attempt to do so, we should not meet with incontinent defeat. It is not to be denied that all adorn- ments, external or internal, — all addi- tions to, or variations from, a given style, are but the effects of some cause to which we may readily trace them, and from which they are as directly derived as were the pure styles themselves,
