 Fy roedd y ffordd o'r cyflodau a gafoddol yn ychydig yn ddiddordeb ystod yn rhagorol yma. Yr hyn yn y lleol, mae'n blynedd y gwahodd i'r ffwrdd ar gyfer y llunydd yma, a'r rhaid o'r wlad ar y llunydd ar gyfer y llunydd a'r cyfloddau gyda'r bach. O'r dweud i'r hefyd, mae'n ddiddordeb yma, mae'n ddiddordeb yn gweithio eich cyfloddau bach. Mae'r ddiddordeb ei gweithio eich gweithio eich gweithio a'r hwnnw, hwyl i'r llwydoedd ymlaen, ac ydych yn fwy, mae'n ffordd yma'r ffordd, y Pettys wedi'u gweithio'r hystodd, y dyfodol yn rhan i'r hyn o'r hyn, y dyfodol ymlaen y Llyfrgellau Victoria. Felly, gallwch chi'n gweithio bod 100 o'n ei ddweud o'r cyflawn. Felly, yn y ddweud, mae'n gweithio ddim yn y cyfrifau, a'r hyn o'r roi'r roi'r cyfrifau, a chynau'r bwysig i'w ddweud yn ymweld. Mae'r pwysig wedi'i gweithio'r petit, yn ystod yn ystod yn y bwysig. Felly, yna'n gweithio, petit wedi'u gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n 1834, yma yma 33, yw'r ysgol yma, yw'r llanddoedd yn ymddangos, a'r ysgol. Mae'r bwysig wedi'u gweithio, er mwyn i'n gweithio'n gweithio. Mae'r brugnau'n gweithio'n gweithio. Mae'r bwysig yn ymddangos, ac mae'n ddweud yn ymddangos, a dwi'n ffrindio'n gwneud wrth ydy'r cyllidol yn oed yn ymddangos, mae'n ddweud yma. Mae'r ddweud ar gyfer y llyfr yma, yma yma. Mae'r ddweud yn ymddangos, ymddangos yn ymddangos, oedda'r llai, a byddwch yn gofyn o'r cyd-farnol. ac mae rhai oedd yn ddod yn ei wneud i'r rhan oherwydd dda'r ffordd o'r mewn cyfnodd ymlaen. Mae'r ffordd yn ymherwydd, yn 1869, roedd ymherwydd yn ddweud y ffordd, y bydwch yn ysbyt yma yn Cymru, ac yn ymhyfydd ar y ddefnyddio ymherwydd o'r 320 pwyntiau. Maen nhw'n mynd i'r byw yn bod yn ni ddim yn ymwneud. Mae'w bwysig yw'r newydd yn ni ddim yn ymwneud. Mae ddim yn cyd-deithasio ar 180 ysbryd. Felly, ddim yn ymwneud sy'n ddam 5 drwythiau! Yn wneud cyfio'r rhai ddwy o fewn yn y bwysig yma, neu yn y camp bwysig ar yr 1822, ond rydw i roedden nhw ymddangos yma rydw i'r ymbrithu Brytyn ac oes yn ymweld yn ymddangos. Mae'r gŵr yma yn rhan o'r Arthau Llywodraeth ar 1842au mae'r byw ymdweith yw gŵr, mae yma yn gwneud, mae'r gŵr yn edrych yn ei wneud yn ymdweith yn y llwyr 20 oes. Yn ymdweith ymdweith yma, mae'r ddaf yn gweithio ac mae'r arddai yn ysgafodd o'r hordd ddweud o'r 122 oed. Mae yma'r 1 o'r gwybod yw'r llansgap yw'r 20 o'r 30 oed. Mae'r albwyntau o'r Aberton Holder, 20 o 30 oed, a rwy'n cael ei wneud y pethau yn cael ei ddwynt a'r Aberton Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn a'r 1 o'r 3 yn ymבעel做ed gan Aberton Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Gwyrdyn Llywodraeth, 1820 oed, At Llywodraeth Cynllun i fynd yn falch, ddweud, ac yn y cethedrall i fynd yn ploedd yn byw. can be dated to 1832 because it shows the Norman Tower there on the right, just in the process of being taken down. The texturing and strength of the buildings seems to come directly from Prout. Samuel Prout, of course, less well known, one of the most popular watercolourists in the 1820s, specialised having developed this technique in it and later became watercolourist to the king. Prout and Pettit knew each other, praised each other, and exchanged pictures. Here Pettit writes he went to the same spot of the iconic picture of the Stathaus in Gemp that I showed you, to paint the same view but notice the differences, whereas Prout includes people, marketplace and harmonising splashes of colour to create the overall romantic view. Pettit disdains all of that to focus on the architecture and his mood at this time is bleak. This is what I call his monochrome phase and it's his first distinctive and original style, more so than the previous one clearly. An important subgroup during this period are his shipping pictures. Here are two from Harwich, very near where he was working as a curate at Bradfield, and one from Rochester, just a short boat ride. But a subgroup more important that I want to show you are his pictures of the black country mines and factories, dark and without caricature. These are said by the Black Country Living Museum to be the earliest known pictures of such scenes. Yes, Turner and others had painted romantic views of Dudley Castle, but this is many decades before Butler Bayless and later Lowry around Manchester found artistic subjects in such scenes. The left hand picture is the one on the left in front of you here. Monochrome pictures continue into the 1840s, but around 1837 Pettit starts developing a much more colourful style, and this is the third group to show you. It seems to have been developed during a three month trip around Ashbourne, Derbyshire. This tree for example was drawn three or four times in different colours and the colours are much brighter and more vivid here on my screen than you can see there. It's got a beautiful bright blue and yellow. The purpose was to develop the tools to present the beauty of churches for his first book which was going to come out in 1841. Here are several from the UK which didn't make the final cut. Different palettes, but all with the same exuberance and all lacking a bit of colour. The left hand one of Ashbourne was the one used in Europe. Here you see two of Saint Ambrosio in Milan, one of which was selected for illustration. On the right at the bottom you see that the illustration exactly matches in little detail the water colour. Pettic did nearly 300 illustrations for the book. So if you add in the number of churches that didn't make it and the multiple pictures of the same one, that's quite a large volume. The exuberance of the style gradually reaches its peak in Normandy on the way home. So here for example Norry Church just outside Cairn and you'll see more later when I talk about the book. There are also a few landscapes from these journeys here too. On the left a little building at Villa Franca near Nice which is the second picture in front of you there. But it's the one on the right that I want to draw your attention to, the very quick impressionistic way that he's captured the mountains and that in 1839. That completes an introduction to the three early groups, those who are aware of some of his later work are usually surprised by the style and the finish and the colour. Later work splits into two groups, what I call the architectural sketches and finished work. If Pettid is known at all it's for architectural sketches because quite a few were given away in his lifetime and on his death. The key features are of an architectural sketch, a minimal background, minimal foreground or sky. They can be seen as portraits of buildings in the same way that artists might do portraits of people with a neutral background. Pettid himself would say this, it's as necessary to know the effect of a building as the means by which the effect is produced. Plans and drawings show the means, a sketch shows the result. Effect was a more loaded word in Victorian times than in our times, carrying the implication of the emotional impact, the impact on the viewer. One subgroup of these I want to draw your attention to is ruins of Gothic abbeys from 1845, such as this is of Crolund abbeys. Ruskin of course coined the word savage in 1852 to describe northern Gothic, but more as a quality to be sought after. Whereas Pettid sees the savagery of the society that created these wonderful buildings as something one would not wish to recreate and in trying to recover the architecture, one ends up with just lifeless copies. A further illustration of this is a comparison of Bailund abbeys has painted by Gertin lacking a bit of green and Pettid on the right lacking a bit of brownish red. Gertin of course shows a romantic view of the Gothic with the added greenery, the kind of picture that would encourage someone to build a ruin or a folly in one's estate. Pettid is building out the violence associated with the architecture. The left hand picture of course is highly commercial and always was, but among those I've shown this comparison to, I'm by no means alone in thinking that the right is less quaint and more accessible to a modern eye because of the drama. Another from these, this series is Whitby, which is the third here in front. This set of architectural sketches are part of a small underground church, St Radigond near Tor, now in fact well within Tor, you see Tor Cathedral in the background of that one there. They were done to illustrate the paper that Pettid submitted to this society in 1852 on becoming a fellow. There were five watercolours which he brought along to lie on the table as he read his paper. So three I brought back now and are lying on the table there. Of course you were in Somerset House then but perhaps the table might be the same. Now look at this watercolour of Crystal Palace side by side with Philip Delamott's photograph. Delamott of course was a pioneer of photography in Britain. From the early 1850s photography would rapidly come to be used in architectural studies. Pettid was a supporter of photography, commissioned and used it in some papers and saw it as complementary to his art, especially for close-up of architectural detail. As pictures the architectural sketches are different to conventional compositions but can be evocative in a way that art without a full colour range can be and they can capture the dignity and character of a church more than a complete scene. I think over 2,000 sketches have survived which would be an extraordinary portrait gallery of medieval churches from across Europe as they were in the 19th century. Let's move on to the last group, finished art of the later period. Most frequently these are a building in its setting but there are quite a number of pure landscapes such as this rock of Torquil or this Welsh view or the view of Soma over the River but showing the church in its setting is the main subject of Pettid's completed pictures. There were all to be exhibited at his lectures to complement and leaven the architectural sketches. Clearly that post turner, the third influence I've mentioned for Pettid because of their treatment of light and the atmospheric effect but still distinctively Pettid. The date here is 1855 and I need to mention just a little bit of context. At this time in the mid 50s British and French art were diverging. We doubled down on the historical romantic theme with the pre-Raphaelites supported by Ruskin while Impressionism was going to emerge a little bit later in France. In terms of composition if you see a connection in the refinement detail a composition between the romanticism of Prout and the pre-Raphaelites and the Impressionism of Turner and the Impressionist that's not a coincidence. Pettid of course falls firmly on the right hand side. Lichfield appears to have been his training ground or studio. From a lecture on refinement in architecture he writes No true artist, whatever be his branch of art will rest content without doing something towards its improvement either in developing beauties or in correcting faults and you can be sure that he would have applied that to his art otherwise he would not have said whatever that branch of art. He painted Lichfield over 100 times from every angle in every type of weather and at least half have probably survived and again the colours are not coming out at all there sadly. 15 or so are in the book with good colours also on the table is the first picture that I showed there which is the cover of the book as you can see in the top right hand corner. A few more examples from France Lichfield was his studio which he then took on his journeys each year the techniques so as to then do similar pictures elsewhere. Here are two from France and one from Iona in Scotland. The question that I want to pose is whether Pettid doesn't achieve something special in the space after Turner and before Impressionism is vacated by the Pre-Raphaelites when they went on their historical move. So I've given you a quick introduction to five groups of Pettid's art and I hope that it demonstrates at least that Pettid deserves to be taken seriously and I've explained that people have never heard of him as an artist because his pictures were never sold by him or his family. What happened was in 1953 his great-ree stied in an old house in Surrey and the entire horde was abandoned in an outhouse to new owners. They held onto it for 15 years and then it appeared at Sotheby's Billingshurst over the course of the next 12 years. The auctioneer could think of nothing better to do than to group them in lots of 100 to 300 at a time and worse than that, mixed with pictures of his sisters. 20% of the later works are actually attributable to his sisters. To give you one example of that, here is 22 September 1856 Pettid and his sister Emma sitting side by side. If you particularly focus on the building you see the left hand one is strong and substantial while the right hand one is not as good. But let me finish with two testimonies so that you don't think it's just one lone fool trying to advocate Pettid. First of all, from his own time, Philip Delamott we saw the pioneer of photography, became Professor of Art at King's College, tutored to royalty and wrote the art of sketching from nature, i.e. watercolours outdoors. In 1888, 20 years after Pettid died so no obligation at all to mention Pettid. He included examples from nine of the great watercolourists Turner, Copman, Gertin, Cox, Barley and so forth, and Pettid. So he put Pettid in the highest company and especially praised his architecture and shipping. Secondly, the only modern independent comment about Pettid in the review of my book in the British Art Journal in summer this year most accomplished watercolour artists remarkable natural feeling for composition perfectly capable of producing the most refined and highly finished watercolours one could wish for. Right, that was the easy bit. Now you have to continue please to look at the pictures while I talk to you about Pettid's views on architecture which is much more complicated. If you can absorb both simultaneously then you feel the range of Pettid's achievements. Pettid's architectural career runs from 1841 to 1868 and I'm going to touch on just a few things from three different periods. First of all, his battles against the extremism of the supporters of Gothic in the early 40s. Secondly, in a little interim period where he focuses on widening the range of accepted styles and lastly I particularly want to draw your attention to his modern progressivism during the later battle of styles and there I'll include the few examples of his own designs. A bit of context is essential here. By the early 1830s Gothic had already established itself as the primary architectural style for churches and it was given a further big impetus by Pugin publishing his first major book Contrast to use its abbreviated title as Rosemary Hill notes in her recent biography it's more of a manifesto than an argument for building in 13th or 14th century Gothic. But 1835 was also the year of a much less well known now essay on architecture by Thomas Hope published a few years after he died it advocated a forward looking eclectic approach to architecture pet its work goes further along that line and against that of Pugin's but it was Pugin who was inspiring not just to architects but to a group of Cambridge undergraduates who formed the Cambridge Camden Society in 1839 intent on reviving all aspects of the Anglican church inside and out. They were like the storm troopers for the use of one correct style of Gothic architecture especially aggressively from 1839 until 1845 under their founder John Neil. Gilbert Scott would later say in his recollections you can see the quote there architects would be blacklisted from church work if they didn't follow the ecclesiologist line. So the first period is this battle against the dogma of the Cambridge Camden Society. Petit did a lot of things during the decade I have to spend quite a bit of time on the book because it still sounds as a significant and widely underappreciated work and I must add a word or two of balance about St Mary's which is mentioned a few times but not completely. Remants on Church architecture came out in 1841 was highly praised by established media not surprisingly two volumes, nearly 300 of illustrations all of places which generally were not the most common ones people were familiar with. So a tour de force, in Petit's own words the objectives I've done my best to set before the reader a sufficient variety in form and composition to prove to him how wide a range can be taken. So directly against Pugin's call to focus on a particular narrow range of Gothic he continues, the builder will thus learn not to imitate but to invent to mark the period of his labours by a style distinguished from that of his ancestors otherwise and by his ameganus and deformity. So in recommending originality and to invent Petit is proposing something which is directly against what the ecclesiologist had just six months or a year before set themselves up to impose one correct style which they wanted to decide on and all based on English models whereas half of Petit's illustrations are foreign models and they even in one of their criticism said beauty should play no part in church architecture or at least not as a criteria whereas for Petit beauty was fundamental to what he was wanting to propose. Those were some of the immediate issues but I want to quote you one passage out of many which shows that the book also previews issues that would come to the fore much later. If it were asked which of the buildings of the present day with fairest to command the admiration of posterity I should answer without hesitation those connected with our railways. Bridges via ducks, perfection of mechanical beauty can any of our modern atesiastical buildings compare with these. Well criticism as you can imagine from the ecclesiologist and then counter criticism from the Christian remembrance or in other journals went on for a full two years to 1843. Later that wouldn't be quite a phenomenon as it was then this was the first major battle but I want to jump to Edward later Professor Freeman's who wrote his own history of architecture in 1849 from these two authorities I hope and Petit I've learnt far more than from all other architectural writers put together. Hope signalled the direction Petit had beaten the path. So for Freeman and others this was the most important book on architecture by a living author throughout the 1840s and sadly it's not recognised at all. This catapulted Petit to the centre of the debate as the leading conservative voice against the dogmatism of the age we don't have time to talk about those first three issues that I've mentioned but we do need to touch on the fourth preservation of ancient buildings which Petit advocated versus destructive restoration i.e. when you restore an old church building you put it into the one correct style. This leads to the battle of St Mary's which is only partially represented. So the short story here Gilbert Scott early in his career commissioned to restore the St Mary's church in Stafford proposed and as you see eventually went ahead with this gothic imposed roof on the south transit which Petit and others who fought like him thought would destroy the character of the old church shown by his watercolour there in 1841. Quite remarkably this was put for resolution to the architectural society at Oxford and the Cambridge Camden society that's a bit like one of the legal battles concerning Brexit being given to the vote leave campaign to decide. The Oxford society was similarly minded but without the level of intrusive badgering of all and sundry like that in Cambridge. Exactly how that such an absurdity came to be agreed by the rector and the donor is not at all clear but that's not the main point I want to make. This is what Scott had to say. He wrote about it twice later. First of all in a book in 1852. These were early days of church restoration cannot claim credit from acting on any defined principle not without effect on the minds of others. So pointing out first of all it's an admission of doubt which for Scott is extremely rare I can assure you. And secondly it points to the significance of the event and secondly when he's attacked by the anti-restoration movement in the 1870s I can hardly say that this movement is new to me for I was assailed on the same principle by Mr Pettit in 1842 and 1841. Pointing out that this is the first major incident. So of course preservation had been an occasional issue since the 18th century. Many antiquarians had opposed changes but as the Gothic revival got going Pettit was a major public figure opposing the changes to the medieval churches in his book where there was a whole chapter this example and other writings too. Let's move on to the second period. By 1850 the immediate issues that we noted had all gone Pettit's way by no means just because of Pettit. Neil's extreme position had gradually become isolated and he was deposed in 1845 for the much more politically astute Alexander Beresford Hope. But the drive to build a national style around medieval Gothic remained indeed strengthened under Beresford Hope. Other leading characters entered the fray. Gilbert Scott would come to the fore not just as the most prolific Gothic architect but as the leading advocate of a national style based on Gothic for all kinds of architecture. Ruskin of course joined in with his eloquence and attracted huge attention as he still does and for the other side modernists such as Robert Kerr who wrote The Alternative Seven Lamps and James Ferguson who Pesner says matched Ruskin and the ecclesiologist for arrogance and rudeness. But back to this watercolour because this is of the Crystal Palace, the Great Exhibition, the iconic example of engineering-led buildings that did not collapse to the Chagrin of Sun. Pettit would often ask whether the revival really captured the spirit of the age or rather prophetically he said was doomed to gradually fail on its development to meet the views and exigencies of the present i.e. match the inventiveness industry and dynamism of the Victorian age. Characteristically as Gothic got more entrenched from our churches Pettit went off for a year to France to search for perfect examples of round arch styles a shorthand for different styles at the boundary between the Latin south and the Gothic north Torloche Poitier down to Bordeaux that central region came to be called Angevin with Romanesque architecture which flexibly harmonised a wide range of motifs so domes, sloping roofs, flat roofs, pointed arches, round arches different kinds of spires. The result, architectural studies in France came out in 1854. Gavin Stamp pointed out that it was an influential book and Scott followed in his footsteps that's the only modern reference to Pettit per Pettit as opposed to Pettit on the receiving end of criticism from the ecclesiologists or losing a battle with Gilbert Scott. These pictures, the previous and this and the next are all from that book as you can see by the illustrations. At one point the weekly builder reports a many battle of styles between Italian and Angevin. Italian of course proposed by several people Venetian, Lombardian, Pesan but eventually into their credit the high victorians accommodated them all. Some satisfaction for Pettit but not enough because Gothic was still the main basis. So by 1855 the last stage of Pettit's involvement in the battle of styles begins. For the next ten years the battles were mainly fought out in the public lecture halls. Not so much with new points as with new arguments for old points most of which were touched on or covered by Pettit in 1841. Sorry I've got a head of myself. By now Reba was getting into its stride it added its annual series of public lectures from 1856 and the architectural school and museum started another series of annual lectures and all of these were not just reviewed but were reprinted in the builder along with all of the angry letters. Pettit delivered at least eight of these major published lectures as many as any of the leading figures on either side. His great attraction as a lecturer was partly his art. Reports describe Reba's hall by then in Condwyth Street with 100 of his pictures pinned to the walls. Only sketches would not have worked. The landscapes and wider views would have been used and also carry his exhibition labels, little pieces of paper hanging down from the centre. 100 pictures is the same number as I'm going to show you in the whole lecture so imagine if they were all around. I think that's actually better than PowerPoint. I'm going to give you just three snippets from these lectures to give you a flavour of Pettit's progressivism although the lectures actually range quite widely. First of all one called utilitarianism in architecture at the exhibition in 1856. Utilitarianism was a key debating point between the Goths and the Antigoths. Pettit delivered a lecture with that as its title and he'd been illustrating the point since 1841 utilitarian buildings were authentic with scotages worked in Switzerland, not in the UK. A building has to address its purpose first and foremost and this quote, a study picturesenas if not wholly valueless is incomparably of less value than that which is inartificial. This may explain or support the fact that Pettit never took artistic licence in pictures after the 1830s, after 1830 in fact. More provocatively Pettit praises the furnaces in the neighbourhood of Wolverhampton taken as buildings independently of their accompaniments of fire and smoke are absolutely grand. That I think is Bilston in 1852-III and I think it's the same as the first I showed you which is on the left. And he continually points out the incongruity between the genius of the Victorian age and its pension for neogothic architecture. It is I suspect because this is not a cathedral building age that our genius seems to flag and languish when we attempt what is specially the architecture of cathedrals i.e.were it not for the big churches Gothic would never have become nearly as popular. While in our engineering works we display a power and a perception of architectural propriety not surpassed in the greatest works of the Romans this isn't new as we saw it was a widely held position for secular architecture but not in church architecture. Most opponents were willing to grant the gothicists the churches if they would play with those and leave the rest alone. Let me jump to what Pesnes says about the 19th century. Why is it then that a hundred years had to pass before an original modern style was really accepted? How can it be that the 19th century remains smugly satisfied with the imitation of the past? Unfortunately this doesn't give credit to Pettit and the others who are saying the same thing either are here in the outline of European architecture or in 19th century architectural writers. Pettit may be one factor why the opponents may be less discussed than the supporters of Gothic now but we should note that Pettit's modernism is very different from the tabula rasa 20th century modernism that Pettit goes on to praise and Professor Kerl recently calls a dystopia. For Pettit our new style when it comes must contain much both of revived Italian and Gothic revived Italian being Renaissance of course. There were some attempts at the early part of the 20th century by comparing churches and others in secular architecture before for the following 60 or 70 years there was this pure modernism until now it's starting to become a lot more flexible. The last dimension of Pettit's thinking we need to touch on is his efforts at originality while harmonising with the past. On occasion he produced designs and had them got up by Thomas Hill to present to the architectural exhibition for architects to pick up and use as they wished. Ones based on these churches the top and the left are of a church in Corfu the bottom and right and he deliberately does designs based on that as examples of might be a nice interesting modern church in the UK. A few churches were built with motifs suggested by Pettit but whether or not those have a connection is not clear. Be that as it may there were two buildings that were definitely completed his summer house in Upper London and the one small church in North Wales St Philip's at Cairdion. Sadly the summer house with its remarkable viewing platform where you can see all the way down to Lichfield is no longer but the church I'm pleased to say has just got a new lease of life. Last year it was upgraded to grade one and soon it should be handed over to the friends of friendless churches to be cared for in perpetuity. The new listing reads included a grade one for a special architectural interest as a highly unusual and distinctive church for its period boldly original in its style and relationship with its landscape. I didn't write that. You can take it as an independent testimony from a very experienced group of examiners. So in conclusion with just these few highlights I hope to have shown you that in both disciplines he can claim to be a significant historical figure. In architecture those who built buildings obviously claim first place but as a commentator Pettid is important as the first major advocate of conservative preservation for ancient buildings as the Gothic revival was getting going. As a major influence towards softening the extremes and broadening the repertoire of Gothic and for advocating a progressive path for church architecture that might have been a great help to Anglicanism as society changed. But in art I think he has a very much stronger case even because here there's a real legacy albeit just a fraction of what once was. A topographer combining accuracy and effect a rare example of a modernist during the pre-Raphaelite ascendancy and because of his authenticity painting as he did free from the constraints of the romantic market. Going beyond this there is therefore a case that as a progressive in a historical age Pettid has a claim to relevance today above that of many of his better known peers. Nowadays art and architecture are dominated by novelty. 19th century historicis in both disciplines have very little to say to a modern age. Pettid's progressivism in architecture on the other hand building on and harmonising with the past is directly relevant and Pettid's art can be more readily appreciated by a modern generation than many of his contemporaries. So Mr President let me end by thanking you again for the opportunity to reintroduce Pettid to the society. Any help that the society or individual fellows could provide to recover his reputation in academia or in bringing him to a wider audience would I think enrich our understanding of 19th century art and architecture in a way that has real meaning for the present. Thank you.