214 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[June, 



so hasevervotherquadrangular space, therefore liaveno suspicion tliat 

 there can be .my sort of symbolism hirlcing in what is so very common- 

 place a circumstance as Hs/our-sidcchicss, until we learn from Duraii- 

 dus, that those four sides are expressly intended to signify — 1. Con- 

 tempt of Self. 2. Contempt of the World. 3. Love of God. 4. 

 Love of our Neighbour! — whether the fourth would not be more pro- 

 perly expressed by that being made much the shortest side, is not 

 saidi Again, the Refectory means — not, as might be supposed, carnal 

 appetite, but the love of Holy Meditation! the Cellar — even nothing 

 less than the Holy Scriptures! ! and the Dormitory a clean Conscience. 

 This may suffice to give some idea of the architectural spirituality 

 and devout mysticism inculcated by Durandus, and now promulgated 

 under the auspices of the no less intelligent than zealous Cambridge 

 Camden Society, to wliom two of their own fraternity not long ago 

 dedicated a translation of Durandus' mystical rigmarole — almost too 

 strong a dose, we should fancy, for the strongest Caondenist stomach 

 among them. 



If to be matchod at all in his crazy fancies, the Durandus of old is 

 most nearly approached by a modern and living mystic who thus ex- 

 pounds to us a profound piece of symbolism : "The /Aree buttresses 

 below and the three sides of the triangle above, give the s;.r days of 

 the creation, and the light in the centre is the sertnth. The buttresses 

 in Trinitv, support tlie Light, which is the Law. The triangle or 

 upper part in Trinitv supports the Law. From the apex of the trian- 

 gle, the cross is made to appear an emanation of the Trinity. Also 

 the cross is shown by the centre buttress at the shaft, the base of the 

 triangle as the arms of the Light for the Head, denoting that the Cross 

 was from the Beginning ! ! " Almost might one suppose that this was 

 intended as a wicked caricature or quiz, instead of being penned in 

 seriousness, and recommended with earnestness as being a notable ex- 

 ample of Christian architecture in regard to perfect " intelligence of 

 design," and spirituality of meaning. 



In regard to such " intelligence of design," being novsf revived in 

 practice, were there no other objection, it is to be apprehended that 

 it would be completely thrown away upon the uninitiated, to whom it 

 would be as unintelligible as were Irving's Unknown Tongues; and 

 that instead of contributing to edification, it would be looked upon as 

 a sort of religions mystification any thing but in character with the 

 spirit of Protestantism. The ideas and the feelings which once gave 

 meaning and value to such enigmatical language in ecclesiastical 

 architecture, having utterly passed away, the imitation of it at the pre- 

 sent day would be only mere make-btliere and architectural masquerade. 

 It avails not to say that such allusions ought to be revived, if the 

 time is quite gone by for them. The merely putting on the costume 

 of former ages when the institutions themselves to which it belongs 

 are extinct, would be only solemn mummery, and disguise. It would 

 be like dressing up a child to personate its grandfather, — pleasant as 

 a brief joke, but preposterous if intended in earnest — sincere but 

 moon-struck. To lament that we no longer continue in the "faith of 

 our forefathers," is very much like saying that the Reformation ought 

 not to have happened,' — as perhaps it would not but for the foul and 

 barefaced iniquity of the Romish church, and its abominable supersti- 

 tions. Happened, however, it has ; and it is now all too late to think 

 of repairing the mischief. Even if we are so far to return to the 

 usages of our forefathers as to revive " Christian principles of de- 

 sign," and symbolism, in our church-architecture, it must be a work of 

 such time, that in the interim the zeal which now so loudly calls upon 

 us to do so, will have sunk to the freezing point. That the present 

 generation of architects are utterly unfit for the task cannot be doubted, 

 after no less an authority tbanWelby Pugin himself has told us : "The 

 student of Christian architecture should also imbue his mind with the 

 mysteries of his Faith, the history of the Church, the lives of those 

 glorious Saints and Martyrs that it has produced in all ages ;" and 

 among other things be acquainted with the " liturgy and rubrics of the 

 Church ;" — meaning, we suppose, not of the heretical Church of Eng- 

 land, but of that of Rome. It is therefore, perhaps, out of compassion 

 to the ignorance of architects, that the Camden Society have kindly 

 come forward of their own accord to instruct and indoctrinate them in 

 tiie profound mysteries of canonical architecture. The Camden So- 

 ciety must not, however, expect too much from their pupils; because 

 if tliey reckon upon their ready docility, their implicit obedience, and 

 their sincere gratitude, they may find that they have reckoned with- 

 out their host. 



The Camdenists would do well also to reconsider some of their 

 own arguments. By identifying Gothic architecture in a special 

 manner with religion — that is the religion which prevailed when 

 tbat particular style of ecclesiastical building (for which the epi- 

 thet Chsistian is now claimed no less exclusively than emphati- 

 ally) attained its perfection, the Camdenists set up as argu- 

 ment ^br, what should rather be an argument against it. For why 



should we be at all anxious to recover the hiero-mystical language in 

 architecture belonging to an exploded Faith whose altars we have 

 banished, whose shrines we have desecrated, and in whose Saints we 

 put no trust i From the manner in which the Pointed style is spoken 

 of by them and some others, it might naturally be supposed that it 

 was actually part and parcel of Christianity itself, and appeared to- 

 gether with it, whereas, in fact, full ten centuries of the Christian era 

 had elapsed before it began to manifest itself at all as style, that is 

 not till after Christian doctrine had become defiled by the numerous 

 and gross superstitions engrafted upon it by wily and ambitious priests. 

 To use the words of Sir Widter Scott, "the primitive Church differed 

 as much from that of Rome, as did light from darkness ;" consequently 

 it is the Church of Rome and our own Anglo-Romish Church in the 

 middle ages which may more justly be charged with having departed 

 from the l<'aith, than we who have renounced their corruptions and their 

 superstitions. Why then should any among us — more especially those 

 who profess strict allegiance to the Protestant Church of England, excite 

 idle yet, perhaps, dangerous — at any unseemly disputes in regard to 

 matters which are entirely conventional at the best. To retain and 

 keep up is one thing, but to revive customs and practices which have 

 long since fallen into desuetude, and now lost all meaning, is a very 

 different one, in fact nothing less than positive innovation. If we are 

 to be guided in such matters by Christian Antiquity and its precedents, 

 we may as well go back to what was the original Christian style, 

 which prevailed for many centuries, and of which so many noble and 

 interesting examples remain in Italy. Although the Baistlica be un- 

 doubtedly of Pagan descent and origin, it may be allowed to be suffi- 

 ciently consecrated to us as a style and mode of building strictly 

 ecclesiastical, in consequence of having been the one adopted by, and 

 — so to say, converted to Christianity, in such manner that the stain of 

 its former paganism was completely obliterated, and an entirely new 

 and solemnly religious character impressed upon it. 



Still, it may be argued, however such style may be recommended 

 by historical traditions and associations, it is not at all so, as far as we 

 ourselves are concerned, by any national ones. Neither is the style 

 alluded to, at all to be compared with the Gothic for its intrinsic 

 merits and qualities. Very true : but then this is entirely shifting 

 the argument, and what we are called upon to reverence implicitlv 

 out of zeal for the pure Faith, is thus, after all admitted to be prefer- 

 able, rather upon ^sMe//e than Religious grounds! We do not say 

 that the preference is therefore wrong in itself; we object only to the 

 shamming insincerity of those who make Religion a stalking horse to 

 architectural and antiquarian taste; or else, on the other hand, affect 

 a prodigious zeal in behalf of the architecture and arts of the Middle 

 Ages, in order to mask some ulterior policy of their own. It does 

 look somewhat suspicious that, not content with endeavouring to im- 

 prove Church architecture among us, the Camdenists should insist so 

 strongly upon an observance of symbolism and other antiquated 

 fancies; and likewise that they seem quite as eager to arrogate to 

 themselves a dictatorial authority over professional men, whom they 

 treat as incapable of thinking for themselves, unworthy of being trusted 

 to themselves, therefore requiring to be held in a state of close pupil- 

 age to the Cambridge Conclave. Yet on what is the self-assumed 

 infallibility of the latter founded ? They seem to have no other 

 standard or test of architectural merit than Precedent; — to have no 

 suspicion that a building may be concocted according to precedent, 

 with authority for every part, and nevertheless prove entirely naught 

 as a piece of architecture, — a mechanical compilation in point of de- 

 sign, and feeble, perhaps even mean in its general character. As well 

 might our Fresco-painters offer up their prayers to St. Luke to grant 

 them success in their operations in the new Palace of Westminster, as 

 our architects look to being iusnired by the precedent-recipes of Cam- 

 denists, and the mystical lore of religious freemasonry. It is idle to 

 expect at the present day that artists of any kind should be animated 

 by the same motives, or partake of the same enthusiasm as is gene- 

 rally imputed to those who dwelt in cloisters, and devoted their 

 talents to the service of their church. Were such enthusiasm at all 

 felt, it would inevitably be chilled by the reflection that the public 

 have no sympathy with it, and that even were its sincerity not ques- 

 tioned — than which nothing is more likely — it would be regarded with 

 cold indifference by all, except those constituting a special party. The 

 tendencies of the age lie in a different direction. We cannot possibly 

 revive the mental habits,.the feelings and purposes belonging to other 

 creeds and to other states of society ; why, then, should so much pains 

 be taken to resuscitate the mere phantoms of by -gone things? 



There are ultra-Revivalists and Restorers who preach up almost as 

 if it were an express duty, that of refashioning our architecture alto- 

 gether, — of discarding every other style of the art, except that which 

 prevailed prior to, or just about the time of the Reformation; and of 

 employing this last on every occasion and for all sorts of purposes, both 



