1945.] 



THK CIVIL KNGINEKR A,ND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



n 



diverse from tlioae of the modi'rns, that the arcliilerfure of the former, 

 as regards utility, be altogether inaclequite for the l.itler? Did not 

 tlie GreeliS require rooms for sleeping, rooms for lating, rooms for 

 studying, as well as we ? Did they not need tlieatri'S, courts of 

 justice, prisons, and palaces, just as we do? The same defence 

 against the heat of summer and the severity of winter? for, indeed, 

 the severity of winter was felt at Athens almost as in I^omlon. Had 

 we, indeed, adopted the architecture of a people who never needed 

 protection against the rays of the sun on the one hand, or of a land 

 where ice and snow were unknown on the other; vvere we to imitate 

 the dwelling places of the tropics, where every cool refreshing breeze 

 is suffered and courted to enter the open trellis and shaded lattices; 

 or again, were we to import the Norwegian hut, with all its defences 

 against the fury of the storm and the oitterness of arctic cold, we 

 might well be accused of inconsistency. So, also, if the habits of the 

 people whose architecture we copied totally dirt'ered from our own, 

 we should obviously be liabh' to the same charge. But our models of 

 architecture are taken neither from Lillipnt nor from Brobdignag, nor 

 from the land where Munchausen tells us the people fed themselves 

 once a month by means of holes in their sides. Houses constructed 

 after such types would certainly be as useful in England as mangles in 

 New Zealand, or umbrellas in Egypt. But the people whose architec- 

 ture we endeavour to imitate, ate and drank and slept as we do, were 

 as civilized as we, and, in a word, seem to have strutted about this 

 world-stage and to have acted their parts, (in tragedy or comedy is 

 might happen,) in much such fashion as ourselves. 



We seem, tlierefore, sale in concluding that the architecture which 

 would satisfy the wants of the Greeks would be neither totally im- 

 practicable nor totally inadequate for ourselves; and therefore no 

 obstacle need arise to its adoption on the score of utility. 



If we view church architecture as we have done secular architecture, 

 wa shall come to nearly the same conclusion respecting the adoption 

 of the Greek model. It has never, we think, been shown that christian 

 architecture is a necessary part of Christianity ; that the rubric can 

 be complied with and the sacraments duly administered in amediceval 

 edifice. Had Christianity and christian architecture been necessarily 

 comiected, they must have been also coeval, whereas the latter was 

 not invented till centuries after the establislmient of the former. If 

 christians can only worship properly in buildings of one particular 

 form, we can scarcely imagine that that form would be left to be de- 

 vised by human skill ; it may be imagined rather (we speak reve- 

 rently), that both the religion and its appropriate architecture would 

 be subjects of the same Divine revelation. We dare not quote 

 scripture in this place, but our readers will surely remember passages 

 which plainly show that there are no temples in which exclusively 

 men ought to worship. As if forms of doctrine were identical with 

 forms of construction I Preposterous creed! It is heathenish — de- 

 rived from the temples of Jupiter and Minerva, the minarets of Miho- 

 met, or the pagodas of Vishnu. Among idol-worshippers it is no 

 more than a vain foolish thought, born of ignorance and nurtured by 

 superstition; in a christian land far worse, it is insidious idolatry! 



Let, not, however, our architectural tolerance be misapprehended. 

 While contending that there are many cases in which classic architec- 

 ture is admissible and even to be preferred for ecclesiastical purposes, 

 we cannot deny that the niediasval styles are best adapted for general 

 employment. Setting aside the facility of adaptation, so admirable 

 an attribute of Christian architecture, we cannot help seeing that its 

 uationalily, its apparent antiquity (to the unaccustomed eye, a Grecian 

 structure must appear modern) and the consecrated associations at- 

 tached tu it uuist demonstrate to the must coldly calculating judge, its 

 manifeat reciprocity for religious purposes. Speak to an Englishman 

 of the secluded hamlet, and his mind instantly pictures the tapering 

 spire, the massive buttresses, the muUioned windows of the hamlet 

 church. How the mind loves to wander back to some well remem- 

 bered spot where 



" The rude forefathers of the hamlet sleep." 



How strange and cold would seem in such a place the noblest monu- 

 ments of Athenian art ! But the old village church has Afteling in ils 

 stately simple beauty — a poetry— a religion which attracts the affec- 

 tionate revirence of the untutored peasant, and makes it the last strong- 

 hold of happy recollections. The village churches ! They are among 

 the best things we have to boast of. Our village churches, our 

 Shakespere, our Martyrs of the Reformation, and a few more such 

 glories makt up Old Engluul. 



Still, still there are exceptions. The crowded cilies and busy 

 haunts of men have nurtured but indifterently our national architecture. 

 Like sickly vegetation it fares but ill in the unwholesome stinted at- 

 mosphere of populous towns. From the metropolis, excepting one 

 or two noble edifice* too vast to be entirely dentroyed, our ancient 



churches have almost all disappeared and bean suceeedej by hideous 

 caricatures of classic architeclure. The instnncas of attempts to re- 

 budd on the ancient Christian model seem seldom successful : build- 

 ings so constructed are either too bad for criticism, or at best exhibit 

 an air of parrot-like imitation, llie downcast look of a dog which has 

 been beaten into performing a trick which it cannot understand. 



There are one or two reasons whv modern pointed architecture is 

 seldom ellective in great cities. One of those is that while the classic 

 architecture abounds in long horizoulal lines, and attains but a small 

 elevation, the (Jhiistian mode of construction is characterised by ver- 

 tical lines, high roofs, and towering spires. The buildings of the 

 latter kind therefore require for the most part to be viewed from a 

 distance, ami seldom appear cireclivelv unless when constructed in an 

 open unencumbered silualion. In I.ond<;n, however, it is frequentiv 

 necessary to build churches in situations where little more than the 

 front elev.ilion is conspicuous. The classic architecture, moreover, is 

 more essentially artihcial and harinonizas better with a surrounding 

 crowd of artificial objects. The Christian styles, on the contrary, if 

 not suggested (as some say) by nature, are at" least perfectly assimi- 

 lated with it, and never appear so nobly as in amid rural scenery. 

 These considerations, supported by numerous examples, satisfy us 

 that mediaeval architecture should seldom be imitated in large cities 

 except in very unconliued situations. In all other cases we feel con- 

 vinced that it is far better to take some one of the beautiful Athenian 

 models, which (and they are sullicienlly various) appears most suita- 

 ble, to copy \i/ailhfully and correctly, anil to make no more alterations 

 in the original design than are requisite to adapt i( lo modern pur- 

 poses. No one can view true Grecian architecture, can even turn 

 over a book of plates of Atheiian edifices, without being delighted 

 with their stately magnificenoe. They may be readily adapted for 

 the celebration of the church service' in strict accordance w itli the 

 Rubric— and as for the objections about the chancel being -'the 

 holy of holies," and the middle aisle " the pathway of meek devotion," 

 that is, mere goose-gabble. 



Doubtless the objection against the emjiloy ment of the classic mode 

 is produced in many of the more temperate members of the Cam- 

 bridge Camden Society by the wretchetl specimens of the art exhi- 

 bited in this country. It it a huuiiliating confession; but there is 

 scarcely an edifice from St. Paul's downwards in which the true feel- 

 ing and spirit of classic architecture are not more or less violated. 

 Columns, which should be the main support of a building, supporting 

 nothing! Pediments, which should be the continuation of the main 

 roof, overwhelmed by hideous elevations courteously called spires! 

 Architectural pepper-pots, immense inverted porringers of stone, 

 candle-extinguishers done in jjlaslerl How remote are all thess 

 things Irom true classic architecture I Here and there a correct pedi- 

 ment or a row of symmetrical columns is stuck on — 



(" Assuitur pannus splendidus uniis et alter,") 

 and for the rest, the architect deems himself at perfect liberty to in- 

 dulge his own miserable fancv, without paying the very slightest re- 

 gard to unity or even coiigruity of design. 



As the question respecting the exclusive employment of Mediteval 

 Architecture is one of the principal and most inieresting features of 

 the book before us, and of the authenticated publications of the Cam- 

 den Society, we offer no apology for some further considerations of 

 the subject. The two chief requisites necessary in :uiy kind of archi- 

 tecture employed for ecclesiastical purposes in this country are mani- 

 festly these, — suitability for the end proposed, namely, the celebra- 

 tion of services of the Church, according to the precepts of the rubric, 

 and secondly, intrinsic beauty in the style adopted. Concerning th» 

 first of these requisites, we deem it unnecessary to eulogize ; it can 

 scarcely be maintained that in all the edifices professedly constructed 

 on classic models the rubric has never been complied with ; and even 

 if this be granted, it still ct'mains to be proved that these edifices 

 cannot be altered so that the Church service may be duly celebrated 

 within them. 



One or two observations may, however, be acceptable respecting 

 the intrinsic beauty of the styles adopted. There is an opinion among 

 many who have only cursorily examined the subject, that the Classic 

 and Christian styles owe their appannt beauty to the circumstance of 

 our eyes being, so to speak, disciplined into taste for them, and that, 

 therefore, the architecture of Turki'y or Hindostan is as truly beauti- 

 ful when viewed by a Mahomedau or Hindoo as the European styles 

 to a Christian. Now the error seems to be the assumption that the 

 appreciation is sokly the result of habit, and in no way dependent on 

 natural causes ; on the contrary, we wish to show that there is a real 

 abstract principle of beauty independent of accidental circumstances. 



The definition of this principle is an impossibility. In literature it 

 is called poetry ; but pcrva<ling as it does every art and even sciences 

 the most exact, we may fairly say that there is ^ poetry of painting. 



