Chapter 8 of 111839–44

Candidus and “Caninus”

His writing made enemies, and the Civil Engineer and Architect’s Journal gave them room. In June 1839 the architect E. B. Lamb took issue with Hints over competitions.1 CEAJ, vol. II, June 1839, pp. 212–213, letter “Public Competition”, signed “E. B. LAMB” and dated 10 May 1839. Bartholomew answered in the Preface to Specifications, §§XXXVII and XL. The journal’s anonymous columnist “Candidus” quoted the attack on the College of Surgeons and added: “Pray heaven! he may not be St. Bartholomew’d by being flayed alive by his brother architects for the very scurvy remarks he has cast upon the whole profession”.2 CEAJ, vol. II (1839), p. 247, “Candidus’s Note-Book”, Fasciculus VI. Candidus has not been identified.

Bartholomew hit back in the Preface to Specifications. “Caninus”, he suggested, would suit the critic better, since Candidus had admitted that his “bark is sometimes downright barking”.3 Specifications (1840), Preface §XL; Candidus, CEAJ vol. II, April 1839, p. 128. Bartholomew also suggested that the name “Candidus” came from “the same lapse of truth and the same punishment as stigmatised Gehazi the servant of Elisha”, who “went out white as snow”. He accused W. H. Leeds of “some coarseness of diction”. “W. H. L.” replied that Bartholomew himself had called modern architecture “no better than a ‘fraudulent, pickpocket system’“.4 Specifications (1840), Preface (footnote on Leeds); “Retort upon Retort”, signed “W. H. L.”, CEAJ vol. III, August 1840, p. 259. That W. H. L. was Leeds is an inference from the match between charge and reply. The journal observed that he had a horror of competition, “in regard to which he is even rabidly furious”.5 CEAJ, vol. III, August 1840, p. 257.

In September 1840 Candidus declared them quits.6 CEAJ, vol. III, September 1840, p. 302. The dash in the pull quote stands for a suppressed oath, as printed. The journal did not. In January 1844 it still listed “Messrs. Pugin, Gwilt, and Bartholomew” among the writers to whom the profession was least obliged, “and to the last, perhaps, the least”.7 CEAJ, vol. VII, January 1844, pp. 17–18, “One of the Craft”.

“Bartholomew, my boy! we are now quits: you are a d— honest, plain-speaking, though somewhat hard-mouthed fellow,—one who does not mince matters at all.”

“Candidus”, The Civil Engineer and Architect’s Journal, September 1840

Notes

CEAJ, vol. II, June 1839, pp. 212–213, letter “Public Competition”, signed “E. B. LAMB” and dated 10 May 1839. Bartholomew answered in the Preface to Specifications, §§XXXVII and XL.
CEAJ, vol. II (1839), p. 247, “Candidus’s Note-Book”, Fasciculus VI. Candidus has not been identified.
Specifications (1840), Preface §XL; Candidus, CEAJ vol. II, April 1839, p. 128. Bartholomew also suggested that the name “Candidus” came from “the same lapse of truth and the same punishment as stigmatised Gehazi the servant of Elisha”, who “went out white as snow”.
Specifications (1840), Preface (footnote on Leeds); “Retort upon Retort”, signed “W. H. L.”, CEAJ vol. III, August 1840, p. 259. That W. H. L. was Leeds is an inference from the match between charge and reply.
CEAJ, vol. III, August 1840, p. 257.
CEAJ, vol. III, September 1840, p. 302. The dash in the pull quote stands for a suppressed oath, as printed.
CEAJ, vol. VII, January 1844, pp. 17–18, “One of the Craft”.