1844.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



185 



it abounded in original and striking observations, and in highly eloquent 

 passages, which drew forth freijuent applause. This will hardly be ques- 

 tioned after perusing the following e.xtracts from it, which appeared in the 

 " Kentish Mercury " of May 4th, and we think that our own readers will 

 thank us for affording them the opportunity of judging for themselves of the 

 Lecturer's style, and mode of handling his subject. 



"Influence of Forms of Government on the Fine Arts. 



" It is the same with regard to that other knotty question— how far the Fine 

 Arts are influenced by forms of government ;— whether they thrive tetter in 

 republics or in monarchies,— whether the spirit of liberty, or that of despotism 

 invigorates them most,— whether they themselves tend to encourage and keep 

 alive the spirit of either the one or the other; or whether forms of govern- 

 ment have nothing to do with the matter. 



"Those who take the side of republics, and also lay stress upon the in- 

 fluence of climate, will of course, triumphantly refer us to Athens as affording 

 most incontestible evidence in confirmation of their doctrine. But then the 

 instance of another Grecian republic upsets it all again ; for wherefore did 

 not the Lacedemonians distinguish themselves in literature and art just as 

 much as the Athenians ? They were republicans, they were Greeks, and as 

 far as climate is concerned, were jdaced in a more southern latitude. Their 

 temperament and disposition, their manners and institutions, indeed, were 

 different, therefore we may well account for the other ditterence, but this last 

 also shows that republican form of government— for such was virtually that 

 of the Spartans and Lacedemonians— has very little to do with the matter. 



" Louis XIV has shown the world how much may be achieved by royal 

 despotic will, and how very little that much is. He affected the fame of a 

 second Pericles — or rather that of being Pericles, Augustus, Leo, all in one ; 

 and as the world is not over vigorous in examining into similar pretensions, 

 he for a time, obtained it. Pericles and Louis Qiiatorze! — certainly they re- 

 semble each other just as much as do the Parthenon and Versailles. 



" Taken under the auspices of Louis, art was compelled to attire itself in a 

 court-dress, and the muses to wear hoop petticoats. It was also expected 

 from art that it should pay in kind for the patronage so bountifully and 

 graciously bestowed upon it. It was hospitably received as a guest, on con- 

 dition of its playing the part of a parasite also, and celebrating a I'oittrance, 

 the bountiful mifnificence and the boundless magnificence of the Grand Mo- 

 narque. 



'■ The Cliurch and the Fine Arts. 



" As the Church of Rome increased in wealth and power, she added pomp 

 to pomp, and splendour to splendour, superstition to superstition, till it 

 seemed as if she wished to absorb within herself all the pomps and all the 

 vanities, and all the allurements, and all the illusions of mundane power. Art 

 was honoured, — religion sensualized ; the one was enrobed as a priest, — the 

 other decked like a harlot. 



•" No wonder therefore that on separating and withdrawing their allegiance 

 from the Church of Rome, and rejecting its traditions and superstitions, the 

 first Reformers— at least their followers, rejected its ceremonies and its 

 pageantries, as mummeries worse than unmeaning ; or that the work of de- 

 struction began afresh. The grievous havoc then committed either by spolia- 

 tion or wanton defacement, has been a theme of bitter complaint with anti- 

 quaries and artists ; hut if it displayed it too indiscrimalely, popular indigna- 

 tion was not altogether unjustifiable. 



" From that period, art has been greatly circumscribed in Protestant coun- 

 tries, and expelled from that ministry in the temple, «hich it held both in 

 Pagan and Christian times , consequently put upon quite a different fooling. 

 Having no occasion for the serv'ces of art, — -except it be that of architecture, 

 the Protestant church has no employment for, consequently no patronage to 

 bestow on it. This has been deplored — even bewailed ; and not without rea- 

 son—that is, supposing the interests of art are to be held paramount to all 

 other considerations. But with the example of what sort of services it has 

 rendered to religion, in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, before our 

 eyes, there is some reason for being suspicious of it. Were it admitted into 

 the Protestant Church, it would, no doubt, be sufficiently discreet and unas- 

 suming at first; but then, for how long? probably no longer than it had 

 established itself upon such a firm footing that it might bid defiance to those 

 who should endeavour to turn it out again. In such case you have to deal 

 with a servant that will not take warning to leave ; you may discharge him, 

 hut there is no other way of getting rid of him than by fairly kicking him 

 out of doors, and thereby causing a hubbub. 



"In fact, so far from being rendered more solenm and impressive as reli- 

 gious edifices, and devotional in character, many churches in Italy and other 

 Catholic countries, look more like picture galleries and museums of art, and 

 are visited merely as such by strangers. Instead of asking why we do not 

 admit painting into our own churches, the more proper question, perhaps, 

 would be, why do we not exclude sculpture also? Since of the greater part 

 of it as there found, the most that can be said in its favour, is, tiiat there is 

 no danger of its encouraging superstition. 

 " Many and strong are the reaiaiks which have of late been made upon the 



public monuments in Westminster Abbey, and St. Paul's, and it must be ad- 

 mitted that while they are but little creditable to us as productions of art, 

 considered as which they are many of ihera both puerile and bombastic, little 

 better than mere stone-carver's jobs, they are the reverse of Christian in their 

 ideas. They are for the most part. Paganism without its poetry, — are made 

 up of frigid and school-boy conceits, where link-boy genii figure with their 

 inverted torches among Britannias and lions, which last are sufficiently 

 numerous to stock a menagerie. 



" Should it be asked—' what then is to be done ? how is sculpture of that 

 kind to be so christianized as to be completely purified from all taint of Pa- 

 ganism ?' I must confess that I am not prepared with an answer ; neither I 

 believe is any one else. Therefore another question arises, namely, are we 

 justified in persisting to make use of what we acknowledge to be both impro- 

 per and unsatisfactory, merely because we know not how to render it other- 

 wise? Sculpture is all too corporeal for Christian art and for the expression 

 of Christian ideas ; beauty of form is its element ; of mental emotion, of 

 spiritual feeling, it scarcely admits any strong expression, without falling into 

 caricature, and theatrical gesticulation. 



" Even were such monuments perfectly satisfactory in themselves, both as 

 works of art, and as intelligent and expressive memorials of those to whom 

 they are erected, they would still be objectionable on the score of propriety. 



" Great would be the outcry, were it now for the first proposed to place 

 within the walls of a sacred edifice — within the house of prayer and Christian 

 devotion, triumphal effigies — as they may well be called — of our fellow mor- 

 tals, not of martyrs for the faith,— not of men who have been a guide to others, 

 in the holiness of their lives, and their earnestness in the cause of truth and 

 religion ; but of men who have signalized themselves far differently, who 

 have, indeed, proved their claims to earthly laurels and earthly renown, but 

 to no more. Were this, I repeat, now first proposed to be done, great would 

 be tl:e indignation excited : we should be told of the shocking desecration — 

 even profaneness. Although Rome deified its emperors, even heathens did 

 not place statues of their distinguished men within the fanes consecrated to 

 their deities. Custom, however, reconciles us, hardens us to what we should 

 else consider glaring and indefensible improprieties ; so much so that the re- 

 fusal to permit the statue of Byron, by Thorwaldsen, to be put up in West- 

 minster Abbey, has been stigmatized by some as an actof ungenerous bigotry. 

 Yet there to have placed the author of ' Don Juan,' would have been viewed 

 by others as a gross indecency. 



" Even the statue of Watt, the author of the steam-engine, is not particu- 

 larly edifying, although characteristic enough of the steam-engine. Mammon- 

 worshipping times in which we live, and in which steam obtains far more of 

 our cordial esteem than falls to the share of art. No I let us testily our grate- 

 ful veneration for valour, for heroism, for genius, for intellect; for noble 

 achievements in arms or acts — in the senate or in the field! but while we 

 honour them, let us not dishonour the temples of our faith ; let us not, within 

 their sacred walls, be reminded and surrounded by trophies of worldly ambi- 

 tions — of mundane triumphs and mundane glories, which thereby look only 

 all the more abject and pitiful. No, as there is a time, so, also, is there a 

 place for all things ; and a Protestant church is assuredly not the most suit- 

 able place to be made an exhibition room for works of art, or even a pantheon 

 of ' British worthies.' 



" It becomes a question then, whether it be not more advisable rather to 

 expel sculpture, than to admit painting. It is surely no reproach to Pro- 

 testantism, that its service needs no such material aids to devotion ; that it 

 scorns to entice by amusing the fancy, and addressing itself to the imagina- 

 tion. For a religion of external forms, ceremonies and pageants, of devotiona 

 etiquette and representation, art indeed does much, if only because it is in 

 keeping with, and contributes towards enhancing that sort of spectacle and 

 pomp which is affected in all besides. 



" But w hat need of art, or wliat can art do for a church constituted like 

 our own, whose solemnities are not intended to impress the outward senses? 

 Otherwise than for monuments^and how objectionable and incongruous they 

 for the most part are, has just been pointed out. Sculpture is almost entirely 

 out of the question ; more especially if it aims at being classical, for in pro- 

 portion as it is antique in gusto, so it is likely to be found Pagan in character 

 and in spirit. 



• How, again, is painting to employ itself in our churches, if debarred from 

 all those subjects and representations which l>otestantism rejects as super- 

 stitious or profane? It does not tolerate portraits— of course imaginary 

 ones— of patriarchs and saints, apostles and martyrs; much less would it 

 tolerate the embodying of theTrinity as indulged in by Catholic artists— even 

 at the present day ; and the many other representations which are at once 

 shocking and absurd— under human forms. 



" Protestant artists are interdicted— and justly so— from venturing upon 

 purely celestial subjects and scenes ; they may not attempt to scale and scan 

 the heaven of heavens — obtruding upon us their own puny phantasies, as dis- 

 tinct revelations, of what eye hath never beheld, and which it passeth mortal 

 intelligence to adumbrate ever so faintly in idea alone. 



' But fools rush in, where angels fear to tread.' 



