itectural improvements in France under the Third Napoleon, by Mr.
George Edmund Street, by Prof. Kerr, Mr. Digby Wyatt, and others. The
President then proposed a vote of thanks to Mr. Ruskin, who, in
acknowledging the high compliment paid him, said he would detain the
meeting but a few minutes, but he felt he ought to make some attempt to
explain what he had inefficiently stated in his paper; and there was
hardly anything said in the discussion in which he did not concur: the
supposed differences of opinion were either because he had ill-expressed
himself, or because of things left unsaid. In the first place he was
surprised to hear dissent from Professor Donaldson while he expressed
his admiration of some of the changes which had been developed in modern
architecture. There were two conditions of architecture adapted for
different climates; one with narrow streets, calculated for shade;
another for broad avenues beneath bright skies; but both conditions had
their beautiful effects. He sympathized with the admirers of Italy, and
he was delighted with Genoa. He had been delighted also by the view of
the long vistas from the Tuileries. Mr. Street had showed that he had
not sufficiently dwelt on the distinction between near and distant
carving--between carving and sculpture. He (Mr. Ruskin) could allow of
no distinction. Sculpture which was to be viewed at a height of 500 feet
above the eye might be executed with a few touches of the chisel;
opposed to that there was the exquisite finish which was the perfection
of sculpture as displayed in the Greek statues, after a full knowledge
of the whole nature of the object portrayed; both styles were admirable
in their true application--both were "sculpture"--perfect according to
their places and requirements. The attack of Professor Kerr he regarded
as in play, and in that spirit he would reply to him that he was afraid
a practical association with bricks and mortar would hardly produce the
effects upon him which had been suggested, for having of late in his
residence experienced the transition of large extents of ground into
bricks and mortar, it had had no effect in changing his views; and when
he said he was tired of writing upon art, it was not that he was ashamed
of what he had written, but that he was tired of writing in vain, and of
knocking his head, thick as it might be, against a wall. There was
another point which he would answer very gravely. It was referred to by
Mr. D