Malton’s Dublin Then and Now

Home Forums Ireland Malton’s Dublin Then and Now

Viewing 9 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #709960
      ake
      Participant

      [attach]7291[/attach]

      [attach]7292[/attach]

      [attach]7293[/attach]

      Anyone else care to have a go?

      P.S. What’s the copyright situation with Malton’s prints?

    • #800157
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @ake wrote:

      P.S. What’s the copyright situation with Malton’s prints?

      I think he’s dead, ake. We’re probably safe enough.

      Great photographs, though I had never noticed the, ghost like, flying zebras in Malton prints before!

      For all his photographic accuracy, Malton did take some liberties that are well documented, e.g. the bow window on the City Assembly Rooms in the Powerscourt townhouse view, and the tower on the Blue-coat School (which he does note in his commentary, remained unfinished after 20 years).

      Malton’s commentaries, which accompanied the original publication, are reproduced much less frequently than his prints, but can still make interesting reading.

      On the Stephen’s Green print (posted on the Dutch Billy thread) he had this to say about the sober ‘Georgian’ style of the day (c. 1795):

      ‘The houses around, are mostly in the modern plain taste of building, and of brick; some are large dwellings, with high flights of steps to the doors, which give them a respectable, if not a grand, appearance. It is to be regretted that the present style of town buildings of consequence, should so much exclude the noble Grecian ornaments of architecture; the disuse of which, and of stone in the construction, give a flatness and insipidity to the present new streets and squares, which those immediately preceeding do not present.’

      Malton’s use of the term ‘Grecian’ probably didn’t refer to the actual, academically correct, Greek revival that happened a decade or two later, but to ‘classical’ detailing in general and the use of stone in particular.

      He goes on to praise the cut stone mansion of John Whaley (Iveagh House) and has some caustic things to say about the adjoining terrace of ‘Dutch Billys’:

      ‘On the same, or fourth side, are many very indifferent old brick dwellings, which detract much from the importance of the place’.

      Attached to his St, Catherine’s Church, Thomas Street, print is this comment:

      ‘Many of the houses (on Thomas St.) at present are in shabby condition, but as they come down, they are succeeded by others in a good style; and there is reason to look forward with expectation of seeing Thomas-Street with James-Street in continuation, on the removal of a few obstructions, form a very spacious thoroughfare . .’

      After 210 years, this assessment seems a shade premature!

    • #800158
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @gunter wrote:

      I

      He goes on to praise the cut stone mansion of John Whaley (Iveagh House) and has some caustic things to say about the adjoining terrace of ‘Dutch Billys’:

      I think Whaley’s house is the one ajoining Newman House (it’s the 2 storey bit- I think) – if I remember rightly this was the house of ‘Burn-Chapel’ Whaley, father of the (in)famous Buck Whaley (who had nothing to do with the Leeson St club though)

    • #800159
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Rory W wrote:

      I….’Burn-Chapel’ Whaley, father of the (in)famous Buck Whaley (who had nothing to do with the Leeson St club though)

      Quite. Despite the similarities of drink, sex and drugs (not necessarily in that order), I cannot imagine any of the present revellers making it to Jerusalem!

      from http://www.chaptersofdublin.com/books/BuckWhaley/intro.htm
      Richard Chapell Whaley’s Dublin residence was at first No. 77 (now No. 87), St. Stephen’s Green, South; and while he was in occupation of this house, Sir John Meade, first Lord Clanwilliam, came into the neighbourhood, and built himself a new mansion (now No. 85), which seems to have stirred the envy of Whaley. The latter thereupon purchased the piece of ground lying between them, boasting (according to tradition) that he would build something to make his noble neighbour’s house look no better than a pigstye in comparison.

    • #800160
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @gunter wrote:

      I think he’s dead, ake. We’re probably safe enough.

      Great photographs, though I had never noticed the, ghost like, flying zebras in Malton prints before!

      Indeed. Then why do they insist on flying zebra watermarks? Maybe I’ll make HQ scans of the prints and put them in the commons. Could happen. Watch out for it.

      Also it would be nice to have Malton’s interesting commentaries.

    • #800161
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @KerryBog2 wrote:

      Quite. Despite the similarities of drink, sex and drugs (not necessarily in that order), I cannot imagine any of the present revellers making it to Jerusalem!

      from http://www.chaptersofdublin.com/books/BuckWhaley/intro.htm

      Thanks for the link! Is this new?

    • #800162
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @ake wrote:

      Is this new?

      Nope. We were at it in the seventies also; however, I did make it as fas as Morocco. 😀
      K.

    • #800163
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @ake wrote:

      flying zebra watermarks

      They are good copies ake, even with the flying zebras.

      Sorry, I don’t think this copy is as good.

      This view, up the Liffey, should be accessible to ordinary Dubliners pretty soon when the new Calatrava bridge is finished. Pity that the Marine School wont be in it. The arched facades of the two wings have been re-erected to face each other across a fairly bland plaza at the rear of the white office block that occupies the site now, on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay. This is better than having no tangible vestige of the original building, but they’re well hidden away and they do look a bit sad.

    • #800164
      admin
      Keymaster

      Both could qualify for the Dublin vista’s thread, for the love of God, was no consideration given to what the arches might frame ??? well obviously not, don’t even know why i’m asking 😡

    • #800165
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      That is so pathetic it’s hard to imagine what was being thought of. If indeed anyone was thinking!

Viewing 9 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Latest News