1844.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



179 



ALTAR -SCREENS. 



(From the Eccksiologist.) 



There are two wavs of ornamenting the Eastern wall of a Chancel, 

 which we had not space enough to mention when arguing in our last 

 number against the admission of stone or wooden Altar-screens in a 

 parish church. 



First, there is ample authority for hangings of costly materials and 

 suitable colour. 



There can be little doubt that this was a very common way of re- 

 lieving the plainness and ugliness of plaistered walls: the use of 

 tapestry and embroidered work is mentioned repeatedly both before 

 and after ' the Reformation. Many of our readers will remember, 

 that a hanging of crimson is at this day (o be seen behind the Altar in 

 Jesus College Chapel : would that the present state of that beautiful 

 structure could be quoted, for any other particular, with approbation 

 by the Eccksiologist. Hangings are in use also in Merton College 

 chapel, Oxford. It is obvious how simple and inoffensive this plan 

 would be ; a rich effect of colour will be obtained without any solecism ; 

 shall we add as an additional advantage, at a trifling cost ? The chief 

 excellence, however, of such a plan is, that it is but temporary ; it 

 inflicts no permanent blemish or absurdity on the church. The hang- 

 ings, easily varied or renewed, will be always rich and in keeping; 

 and can at any moment give place to a more correct (if it may be) or 

 a more substantial method of decoration. 



We have before had occasion to observe, that at present our wish 

 to restore has gone beyond our knowledge : as was remarked in a 

 paper read before the Society at its last meeting, the restorations of 

 the nineteenth century may be classed with the sacrilege and indif- 

 ference of the preceding, as scarcely less dangerous to the consistency 

 and original beauty of our ancient churches. To connect this with 

 our present subject. We doubt if there is anything so hard to design 

 as a screen. Assuming the usual axioms of reality and the like, we 

 believe that many ancient and universally admired screens will be 

 found faulty when tried by such canons. And this is the place for 

 another caution ; staunch as we are for adhering to precedent, bigoted 

 as we are called in our admiration of ancient works, we protest 

 strongly against being supposed to admire irrationally and indiscrimi- 

 nately all that is clearly original or even of the pure period. We believe, 

 indeed, that in perhaps all exceptions and anomalies of the old church- 

 builders, some great genius, some counteracting and preponderating 

 principle, something even to be admired will be found. But in the 

 attempt to revive ancient architecture, we have no safe course but to 

 find out by induction some (at least) general rules, and to lay down 

 some general principles: by which we must try our own attempts at 

 imitation ; by which, should thev be confirmed by use and experience, 

 we may test the truthfulness and excellence even of the ancient remains 

 themselves. It will therefore be of small use to bring forward a soli- 

 tary example of a detail or arrangement as authority tor its imitation. 

 Is it right according to canons which have been carefully drawn up, 

 and are as yet undisputed ? Is it defensible upon the principles which 

 we believe to be the life of ancient art? If not, it is no more to be 

 followed than any exception in the iEiieid, however striking or beau- 

 tiful, is allowed to be parodied in a school-boy's copy of verses. But 

 if even ancient screens, in particular, may be thus criticized, it is easy 

 to infer the great difficulty of designing modern specimens; a diffi- 

 culty much increased by our unwillingness to introduce, or our igno- 

 rance in executing, the fair imagery which is necessary to the proper 

 effect of a stone reredos. Can anything be more absurd than to make 

 deep niches, with canopies complete, to hold a brass plate engraved 

 with the Commandments ? It were even more sensible to enniche the 

 officiating clergy, as we mentioned in our last paper. We would refer 

 to the expensive stucco reredos lately placed in Holy Trinity church, 

 Brompton, as peculiarly open to such objections ot principle. For a 

 failure in stone parclose screens, take tliat of the choir at Canterbury. 

 Until then we know more about designing in this branch, what is more 

 reasonable than to adopt the temporary arrangement of tapestry and 



hangings? , . „ .,, • „ 



We next come to the consideration of pictures, as " Altar-pieces. 

 We premise by expressing our own great preference of fresco or dis- 

 temper-work for the decoration of churches to the use of paintings on 

 canvass. The latter are almost always incongruous, and oiten become, 

 bv their unwieldy size and frames, rather eyesores than ornaments. 

 What, for instance, can be worse than the setting of the Altar-piece 

 in St. John's College chapel ; or the huge picture of St. Michael, with 

 its cumbersome pagan frame-work in the Trinity College chapel i But 



I We may refer to the " Hienirgla Anglicana" for a copious and interesting collection 

 of extracts in proof of this assertion. 



where there is no other reredos, and where the church has an oil- 

 painting, we wish strongly to recommend the re-mtroduction of trip- 

 tychs. A triptych will always give a fitting dignity to an Altar, and 

 besides keeping the size of the picture within bounds, provides it with 

 a suitable frame. An ancient example is preserved at St. Cross's 

 hospital, though now removed to the Hall. 



"Triptychs are still to be seen in two churches in Worcestershire. 

 One advantage consequent on the revival of Iriptychs, would be the 

 cultiyation af a severe school of painting. Far less money than is ex- 

 pended on many showy screens, would procure a good devout picture, 

 the leaves of the triptych, in ordinary cases, being simply diapered. 

 A demand for ecclesiastical painting would soon command a supply. 

 And if such encouragement did not find out some English disciples of 

 Overbeck, (though there is little doubt of this in the present improved 

 state of feeling,) what should hinder that foreign artists of the new 

 Catholick school should supply us with what we want ? How simply 

 by means of a triptych and hangings, could the barest East end be 

 made not decent merely, but rich and dignified. The triptych will 

 stand behind the Altar, "forming alone a sufficient background ; on each 

 side, hangings, plain or embroidered, from a moderate height, will 

 hide the rough wall, with no disguise, and add beauty and colour to 

 the whole. 



Connected with this is the consideration of fresco or distemper 

 painting as applied to internal walls. We are persuaded that deco- 

 rative colour will ultimately win its way even with the most obstinate. 

 It is sincerely to be hoped that the example maybe soon and well set. 

 Take the worst East end, which the removal of a revived-Pagan 

 framework has left bare and rough : why not make this good and 

 richly paint it? Thus you avoid solecisms, you make a really substan- 

 tial restoration, you gain a. beautiful coloured enrichment, you encou- 

 rage one of the noblest of arts. What might not be hoped for, if the 

 Church would once again make Painting her handmaid ? Instead of 

 the " portraits" of the "Exhibition," we should have a national school 

 of art working for the holiest of services; and perhaps (it may be) 

 rivalling those English painters, who in 1350, under Hugh of St. 

 Alban's, made St. Stephen's chapel in Westminster, the glory not only 

 of England but of Christendom itself. 



There is another point upon which we wish to offer a few remarks. 

 Much difficulty has been felt by church-builders and restorers respect- 

 ing that part of the 82nd canon, which enjoins "that the Ten Com- 

 mandments be set up on the East end of every church and chapel 

 where the people may best see and read the same." Let us confess 

 at once that we believe this injunction to have lost its meaning and 

 force ; yet at the same time let us boldly declare that we have no wish 

 to evade, on our own responsibility, what may be shewn to be its real 

 obligation. The difficulty is to know what is really enjoined. There 

 are indeed many at this 'time, who, despising the one hundred and 

 forty other canons, are forward in putting forth the claims of part of 

 this one. For ourselves, we merely intend to suggest some consider- 

 ations, which may help to explain this ordinance, and hasten on per- 

 haps the adjustment of what is certainly a difficult question. What 

 we chiefly, however, wish to shew is, the impropriety of niches, or 

 any permanent construction, behind the Altar, to receive the tablets. 



Firstly. This is the only place where the arrangement is ordered. 

 It is an incidental detail, rather than part of a system. It is not recon- 

 cilable with what we know was the usual treatment of the East end 

 at that time. It is not ordered (we believe) either in the Irish or 

 Scotch canons. 



Secondly. It is doubtful what part of the church is meant— whether 

 the East end of the Chancel or the Nave. 'Church' has often been 

 interpreted to mean the Nave, as distinguished from the Chancel; 

 which latter is a technical name recognized in the rubrick. Now, if 

 the Chancel were meant, the object of the injunction is defeated ; for 

 how can " the people best see and read the same" when they are ex- 

 cluded—as there is ample evidence our Church intended them to be— 

 from the Chancel, and are kept off by the Rood-screen some thirty 

 or forty feet from the Tables ? If the Nave be meant, then there is 

 not the shadow of an excuse for placing them behind the Altar, or for 

 spoiling reredoses in order to admit them. Again, if the Nave be 

 nieant, where is its East end ? It can only be above the Chancel-arch ; 

 so high, in most cases, as to be out of people's sight. 



Thirdly. Is it not reasonable to suppose that this order- was meant 

 only to be temporary ; like others of the canons, such as those relating 

 to preachers, to canonical dress, &c. ? For now almost every poor 

 man that can read— and if he cannot read what is the use of painting 

 up the Commandments for him?— has his Prayer-book: so that, to re- 

 enact the Canon, with the practical reason there assigned, would be 

 absurd ; as if now, when Bibles are so common, we should sLill chain 

 a large Bible in the church for publick reading. 



Fourthly. If we set them up in obedience to the canon, it is clearly 



