1845.1 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



301 



CHrRCII OF THE ALEXANDRIAN COLONY AT NOVO- 

 UIORGIEOSK (MODLIN). 

 CWilh ail Engmting, Plale XXIII.) 

 Very lillle is known in this country of the Russo-Byzrintine style 

 for it is h.irdly noticed at all even by those who speak of all other 

 styles, or if mentioned hy them it is very briefly indeed, and without 

 any specimens of it being shown in engravings; neither has it in any 

 one instance — as far as wo are aware — been at all adopted or imitated 

 smong ourselves, notwithstanding that we liave occasionally sought 

 for novelty — how judiciously or successfully we say not — by having 

 recourse to Egyptian, Hindoo, and other outlar.disli, not to call them 

 pagan and infidel, styles ; whereas at all events the Russo-Byzantini' 

 is a Christian one. Among the Russians themselves it lias lately come 

 into vogue again for churcli architecture, in preference to the Greco- 

 Italian style which, in common with other European countries, they 

 have adopted. Riisso- Byzantine is therefore to tliem what Gothic is 

 to us, — their ecclesiastical style par cxcdkvce, nor is it by any means 

 deficient in distinct physiognomy, although its peculiarity depends 

 chiefly upon the bullions dome, and the mode in which that particular 

 feature is applied and repeated. These domes, no doubt, carry with 

 them an impress of nationality that must greatly recommend or even 

 endear the style in the eyes of natives, as being identified «ilh their 

 own church, and with " the faith of their forefathers," wherefore those 

 who advocate scru|nilons adl:erence to history and precedent in ec- 

 clesiastical arthiteclnre cannot do otherwise than commend the Rus- 

 sians for reverting to their " orthodox" and "legitimate" national 

 style. Among those architicts who have been mainly instrumental in 

 lliis " nriral" is Constantine Tl.on (a German, we believe, by origin), 

 who stands at the head of liis profession in Russia, and who has erected 

 several churches in the Russo-Byzantine, not only at St. Petersburgli 

 and Moscow but in several other cities. 



The Churcli at Novogiorgiesk, dedicatt d to St. Alexandria, which 

 we here give by way of specimen of tlic style — though how far it is a 

 good or lair specimen of it we do not pretend to say — has been very 

 recently erected by J. Gay (a French architect). The entire building 

 is a square of 85 feel forming internally a Greek cross, a disposition 

 of plan almost invariably ad( pled. 'I'liere is no distinction of nave, 

 aisles, and choir, the only division within the building being that the 

 apsis is partitioned ofl' by the usual screen or Ikoncstaas, which de- 

 rives its name not from beirg adorned with images but with piciiiris 

 of Saints, &c. : and one of those on the Ikonostass of this church is a 

 topy from Leonardo da Vinci's celebrated "Cena." The apsis here 



No. 97.— Vol. VIII.— October, 1845. 



is lighted by fiie long circular-headed windows, above whicli there is 

 extern dly an arcade of sixteen small open arches, in each of which a 

 liell is hung. The lower part of the building has no windows. The 

 contour of the domes is not quite so graceful as it might have been; 

 neither do those features express themselves very elTcctively in mere 

 outline, as here represented, besides which their perspective grouping 

 is of course altogether lost in a geometrical dravting. There is u 

 dome at each angle and one in the centre. 



The Engraving presents a view of one half of the principle front 

 and also one half of the transverse section showing the apsis. A por- 

 tion of the centre dome is omitted lor w.int of luom on the plate, it is 

 iiowever finished precisely the same as the side d..ine. 



The above wood engraving shows one-lialf of the interior plan, and 

 one-half of the roof. 



NOTES ON ANGLO-SAXON MASONRY. 

 Mr. Bloxam, in his interesting article on " Mixed Masonry of Brick 

 and Stone," in the Archaiological Journal, pp. 307-317, has been able 

 to discriminate works of the difl'erent eras, by pointing out the fea- 

 tures characteristic of their construction. This subject has been less 

 attendi'd to than it cleserves, for there can be very little doubt, that, 

 although most of the architectural features of our earlier structures 

 have disappeared, a great number of remains are extant in the walls 

 of our churches than is generally estimated. The frequent alterations 

 to which all our churches were snliject, those alterations being alvvays 

 made iu the prevailing taste of the time, miy often lead us into error 

 as to the original period of erection; the style of a door or window 

 are not cert.iin criteria of dates, lieingso frequently additions, taking 

 place of others of an earlier design. 



Mr. Rickman first pointed out peculiarities in several churches, 

 both of architectural lealure and construction, which are now well 

 known and gem rally admitted to belong to the Anglo-Saxon era; he 

 thus opened a new field for research, which has since received consi- 

 derable attention, and many new facts have been brought to light. 

 The long and short quuining is now genenerally taken as a feature 

 peculiar to Anglu-Saxiin construction; it is found in the church of 

 Earls Barton, in Northamptonshire, and many others, of the early 

 date of which there can be no reasonable doubt, and I think it may be 

 questioned if it is ever found in buildings posterior to the eleventh 

 century. It may be well to take note of the materials and construc- 

 tion generally associ.ited with this work, in order, if possible to 

 arrive at some general idea of the features of Anglo-Saxon masonry, 

 always bearing in mind, that the nature of the materials found in 

 different localities necessarily exercises a control on its character; it 

 is for this purpose that the following tacts, gathered at random, chiefly 

 from the churches in Suffolk, are offered to the readers of the 

 Journal. 



The church of Hemingstone presents a rather remarkable speci- 

 men of lung and short work at one corner of the nave; the propor- 

 tions of tlie upright masses of stone to the horizontal is very singu- 

 lar, the former being nearly three feet in height, the latter but six 

 inches; no architectural feature of an early character remains in this 

 church. The adjoining parish of Goslieck has the nave of its church 

 quoined in a similar manner, but at Hemingstone the stone is well 

 squared and wrought ; at Gosbeck, however, it is of very rude work- 

 manship, and it may be noticed in the specimen of it here given, 

 that the uprights alternately present their narrowest and greatest 

 width at either of the angles. Both these churches are covered with 

 a modern coating of plaster by wliich the disposition of the materials 

 is concealed. 



The greater part of the tower of Debenham church is of early 

 construction, and is no doubt a portion of the church dedicated to 

 St. Mary, mentioned in the Domesday record ; it is built of large 

 flints, laid in Herringbone fashion, which occasioned horizontal courses 

 of the same material, not observing a strict regularity in its recur- 

 rence : it has the long and short quoining. Brundish church has a 

 tower in all respects similar in construction, the quoining excepted; 

 it is certainly of early date. The nave of Leiston church is quoined 

 with long and short work ; it is built of flint laid in herringbone and 

 covered with an original coarse rough-cast, which, from its so fte- 

 ([uently accomjianying early masonry, may, in connexion with other 

 lacts, be considered an evidence of primitive construction. Rough 

 cast is indeed freciueiitly found in Norman work, but there is a pecu- 

 liar coarseness in that of the Saxon period, whicli is composed of 

 coarse gravel, lime, and sand, the great durability of which is attested 

 by its |ireservatiun through so many centuries. 

 Practical men say, that the coarser the mateiial mixed with the 



40 



