201 s. X. Dkc. 1. '60.J 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



431 



construction, arising from local circumstances. 

 Local circumstances sometimes require to be at- 

 tended to, particularly where a building is erected 

 in a thickly inhabited quarter : as in the case of 

 St. Eustache, whei'e — " par respect pour la voie 

 publique" — the outer wall on the south side is 

 built on a slanting line. But at least in the 

 case of St. Germain des Pros, this hypothesis ap- 

 pears altogether to fail. M. de Guilhermy him- 

 self tells us that the abbey stood long isolated in 

 the midst of meadows ; and from the bird's-eye 

 view of it that he has given in his work, it is clear 

 that there were no local circumstances to constrain 

 the architect out of a straight line. 



Pugin is said to have spoken of the slant as an 

 architectural defect. But under what circum- 

 stances was it that he so expressed himself? It 

 appears that while he was inspecting a parish 

 church in Leicestershire (that was past repairing, 

 as it would seem), a bystander inquired whether 

 he thought the deflection was connected with any 

 symbolism ? " Symbolism ? Pack of nonsense. 

 They did not know how to build straight." It 

 would be interesting to know at what time this 

 occurred. Whether it was an opinion that Pugin 

 deliberately entertained ? And whether he ever 

 expressed it in any of his published works ? At 

 all events, if the question had been put to him in 

 the choice either of St. Germain des Prcs or of 

 St. Etienne du Mont, I cannot but think that he 

 would have given a different answer. 



In considering whether the mediajval architect 

 may not have had some purpose in giving a slant 

 to the chancel, it may not be amiss to bear in 

 mind that in the most symmetrical style of archi- 

 tecture that ever existed, recent observation has 

 discovered an almost systematic deviation from 

 straightness of line, exhibiting itself in a variety 

 of instances ; some more, some less, perceptible 

 to the eye of the ordinary spectator, but in every 

 case clearly adopted with a view to architectural 

 effect. 



In conclusion, I would beg to draw the atten- 

 tion of II. A. to a peculiarity of construction that 

 is to be found in Canterbury cathedral. If the 

 plan given by Fergusson {Handbook of Architec- 

 ture, p. 850.) is correct, there is in the walls that 

 enclose the choir a very notable deviation from 

 the general line of the building. It is not a de- 

 viation of the same kind as the one now under 

 discussion. But I think it is one that many peo- 

 ple, if they observed it at all, would set down as 

 an architectural defect. In fact, upon the ground 

 plan the lines of the walls appear to bulge. This 

 peculiarity of construction may perhaps have been 

 occasioned by local circumstances. If so, It would 

 be interesting to observe in what manner the dif- 

 ficulty of the situation has been dealt with by the 

 architect. At all events there is one point to 

 which I would invite attention by putting it in 



the form of a Query : Is the choir itself of the 

 same width throuiihout ? P. S. Carey. 



In reply to Mb. Caret's letter I regret that, in 

 my communication on the subject of inclined 

 chancels, I omitted to state that the church at 

 Meopham is dedicated to St. John the Baptist, — a 

 circumstance in itself sufficient to destroy the 

 orientation theory, inasmuch as the sun rises on 

 that day about north-east, which is precisely the 

 opposite side to that of the chancel's inclination. 

 If Mr. Carey will refer again to my letter, he 

 will find that I do not "confine" the deflection, 

 which occurs in some of our chancels, " within the 

 narrow limits of the reign of Edward III.," but 

 only to the practice having hegvn at that period. 

 Can he, or any of your correspondents, show any 

 instance of such divergence prior to the period I 

 have named ? 



There was no rood-loft to obstruct the view of 

 the chancel before the late restoration of the 

 church, but a low screen of very poor character, 

 which had been erected when the rood-loft was 

 taken down about fifty years since, and when its 

 finely carved chestnut beam was converted into a 

 support for the belfry floor. 



The "characteristic" remark of the late Mr. 

 Pugin, quoted in your last week's number by 

 your correspondent from the Deanery at Canter- 

 bury, will not, I trust, deter others from still 

 asking the question : " How are the many in- 

 stances in which the chancels of our churches are 

 found to incline so greatly towards the north or 

 south to be accounted for ? " I should have 

 thought, in spite of so high an authority, that the 

 constructors of our ancient churches did " know 

 how to build straight," however in certain in- 

 stances they might have erred. 



Neither do I perceive how the fact of " the 

 church and chancel having been commonly in 

 different hands, and consequently repaired or 

 rebuilt independently of one another," ever satis- 

 factorily accounts for their having been so fre- 

 quently built out of the straight line. 



In conclusion I beg to state that I am by no 

 means wedded to the symbolical theory in this 

 matter, although I consider it by no means incon- 

 sistent with, but rather illustrative of, the age in 

 which so many of our chui'ches were erected. 

 My only object is to elicit, if possible, some better 

 reason than has yet appeared for the singular 

 feature produced by the deflection of many of our 

 ancient chancels. 



John Hooper, Vicar of Meopham. 



The church at Barfreston has been said to have 

 an inclined chancel, and so it appears on entering. 

 It is, however, in the same line with the nave, but 

 the jambs or sides of the chancel arch are out of 



