I returned from Boston this morning and have only since seen the remonstrance against the plans of our Board signed by Mr Bloor for the NY Chapter of the Institute of Architects. Eidlitz and Richardson are here and I find from them that the statement that it represents the unanimous opinion of the Chapter was certainly unwarranted. But if it did it would none the less be a shamefully unsound document. We anticipated charges of the same general character, considered whether we should be at all weak with reference to them and satisfied ourselves that we should not, but we did not think that they would be presented in such a form nor that they would have a backing so apparently respectable.

From the first distinct charge it must be inferred, either (a) that a Romanesque superstructure would be “absolutely inharmonious” with a Roman base, or that (b) the simpler forms of Italian Renaissance are incongruous with those of its Roman parent, or (c) that the lower parts of Fuller’s design are not of the simpler forms of Renaissance, neither of which positions could be seriously sustained.

But if such a misassociation is for the sake of argument assumed, it would, again be inferred from the whole drift of the paper that the association of Romanesque and Gothic forms with Renaissance was held in horror by good architects. There are numerous instances in which distinguished Renaissance architects have practiced in defiance of this opinion: notably Sir Christopher Wren, who repeatedly did so and who even introduced Renaissance features in the most prominent positions in Westminster Abbey. There are hundreds of notable instances in which others have deliberately done the same. You may recall examples in the Ducal palace, the Duomo of Milan, the Certosa of Pavia, and various other well known edifices. As to the statement about the introduction of brilliant color — you perfectly know its falsity & its futility.

The statement that it has always been considered indispensible to [185]

Façade of Doges’ Palace, Venice, with Giant’s staircase, showing upper windows not on axis with those of lower stories

In Cambridge I saw Profr Norton, who said “I was so much pleased with your report that I immediately read a large part of it to my class” [in the History of Art]

As to the propriety of the imposition of a Romanesque superstructure upon a Roman though somewhat Renaissance base he said he had no doubt.

If we are to do anything publicly about the matter we should prefer to do so in answer to official inquiries from you.