1846.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



143 



For ourselves, alihoagh in various countries we have seen " cloud- 

 capp'd towers, gorgeous palaces, and solemn temples," of christian, pagan , 

 heathen, and moslem constructiou, yet vre remain convinced that (as has 

 been well said) " for all the higher efTects which architecture is capable of 

 producing, a Greek peripteral temple of Uie Doric order is dnbivalled." 



THE PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH RESTORATION. 



Thofe who can distinguish between the revival of the ancient principles 

 of pointed architecture and a mechanical imitation of ancient forms, have 

 no diUicull) in recognising the propriety of restoring the numerous eccle- 

 siastical aud civil edifices bequeathed to us by our medix-val ancestors. 

 An important distinction between the renewed appreciation of pointed 

 architecture now, and the Renaissance of classic architecture in the fifteenth 

 century — and one greatly in favour of modern taste, — is that no effort is 

 now made to reconcile styles which depend on opposite causes for their 

 beauty. The modern revival, on the contrary, is marked by an anxiety to 

 pijrge our churches of the barbarisms of the Debased and pseudo- 

 dassic revivals, and to render our national architecture as free as possible 

 from foreign admixture. 



If we define the principle of church restoration to be the removal from 

 our churches of everything that is absolntely incongruous xfHb their archi- 

 tecture, and if we apply this principle consistently, we shall have no dif- 

 ficulty in ascertaining what is to be retained, and what is to be rejected 

 where several styles of architecture are exhibited in the same edifice. 



It is necessary that this definition should be established, because re- 

 storers have frequently contented themselves with the object of ascertain* 

 iDg aud carrying out the original iiJea of the building restored. Now, 

 what we look upon as a fatal objection to this principle is, that in the ma- 

 jority of cases it is incapable uf a practical application. We suppose that 

 there is no one, really zealous for the advancement of pure archi- 

 tecture, who would not rejoice to see every oue of our glorious cathedrals 

 thoroughly and efliciently restored ; and yet, if the task were to be set about 

 with the view of realizing exclusively the intentions uf the first founders 

 of these vast piles, which are the growth of successive ages, the most 

 enthusiastic lover of mediaeval art most oppose a work which tended 

 rather to destruction than restoration. 



Supposing, for instance, it were determined to perfectly restore Ely Ca- 

 thedral, and suppose ample funds existed for this purpose, so that there 

 were absolutely no restrictions whatever on the eflbrls of the archi- 

 tect except those imposed by his own taste and judgnieut- — would any one 

 be insane enough to attempt to restore Ely Cathedral to one uniform style.' 

 Or, supposing that one style only ought to be retained, by what rule should 

 the selection be directed ? Should all the cathedral be destroyed except 

 those parti which exhibit the Norman architecture of the Prior's En- 

 trance ? — or, all except the Early English similar to that of the presbytery ? 

 — or, all except the Decorated of the choir? — or, all except the Perpendicu- 

 I.ir of Bishop Alcock's Chapel ? Is it not obvious that it would be im- 

 possible to retain any one style exclusively ? 



By what principle then ought the restoration to be directed in the in- 

 stance supposed? Obviously by this, — of removing all the additions and 

 repairing all the mutilations by which the church has been defaced since 

 tlie Reformation, and of retaining the uhole of the genuine architecture. 

 If the difl'erent styles adopted by our ancestors had been so essentially 

 discordant as to be absolutely irreconcilable to the same principles of 

 beauty, — if it were impossible that forms successively developed in Chris- 

 tian architecture could be combined harmoniously, — if, in every case 

 where the same building exhibited more than one style, the variety ap- 

 peared harsh and offensive to the eye, — then, indeed, there might be some 

 pretext for the advocates of uniformity. It is a matter of fact, however, 

 Bnd one that speaks loudly for the merit of Christian architecture, that it 

 is consistent with itself, and that different forms of it may exist together 

 wiihout producing a discordant etfect. When, indeed, we come to the 

 Debased period, we find contrasts repugnant to pure taste, because arising 

 from the combination of pointed architecture with a style diametrically 

 opposed to it— the Classic. The elfect of Grecian mouldings introduced 

 in tho woodwork (and sometimes, alas, as iu Westminster Abbey, in the 

 masonry) of an English cathedral, is monstrous and insulferable. But the 

 case is altogether different where Norman architecture is combined with 

 Early English or Decorated with Perpendicular ; for here, the very fact 



that each style grew out of the preceding — that there was in each case a 

 Transition style — proves that there cannot be incongruity or discontinuity 

 iu these successive developements of mediaeval art. 



There is moreover a tacit homage paid to the principles of our ances- 

 tors by the very act of restoring their architecture, which is inconsistent 

 with the destruction of any part of it. M'ilhout adopting a vague ad- 

 miration of old things simply for their antiquity, independently of their 

 excellence, we yet must concede thus much : — that, iu destroying the ad- 

 ditions made to our churches after the Reformation, we, in fact, give our 

 adhesion to the architec'.iral principles of those who preceded the Reform- 

 ation. We say, iu fart, this, by our preservation of the existing monu- 

 ments of Norman and i'ointed architecture, that those edifices exhibit 

 merits totally overlooked or mis-apprehended by the classic innovators. 

 Now is it not palpably absurd and inconsistent, when we have made this 

 profession, to destroy any portion of the genuine works of the mediajval 

 architects ? Must we not, to speak plainly, condemn this destruction as 

 sheer Vandalism — a Vandalism, too, which is inconsistent with itself, and 

 works all the more fatally because disguised by a profession of reverence 

 for antiquity ? 



The restoration of St. Sepulchre's Church, at Cambridge, was disgraced 

 by this reckless and irremediable desecration. The ancient Perpendicular 

 architecture of the fifteenth century was destroyed in the western part of 

 the building by those who, by a singular perversity, erected at the east a 

 chancel in the Perpendicular style of the nineteenth century ! And this 

 destruction, under the name of restoration, was the work of those who take 

 to themselves kot' f^oXI" "i^ character of guardians of English church 

 architecture. Well might M. Didron complain that the injury which 

 modern restorers have, in their self-sufficiency, done to our ancient monu- 

 ments is far more irreparable than the ravages of time and neglect. 



In a recent number of the Ecclesiologist we find a complaint of the de- 

 struction of the old gateway of the British Museum. This complaint is 

 founded, not on tlie consideration that the structure has any merit in itself, 

 — it is not attempted to be denied that it is a hideous specimen of bastard 

 architecture, — but simply on the grouud that the architecture is " genuine '." 

 Senseless inconsistency ! A vile mass of brickwork, decorated with some 

 contemptible imitations of Grecian mouldings, is to be preserved, sim/i/i/ 

 because it is old ; and yet these blind admirers of mere antiquity cannot 

 consent to the preservation of that which is much more ancient, and pos- 

 sesses moreover the merit of architectural beauty aud the claim of rever- 

 ence for sacred places. 



It is well nigh time that some effectual means were taken to prevent 

 injuries which once effected are irremediable. We speak thus boldly of 

 them because there is a growing spirit for tampering with ancient archi- 

 tecture in England and France which has already produced the most per- 

 nicious effects and tends to produce more. The injuries that have been 

 committed in the cathedral of St. Denis, near Paris, under the pretence of 

 restoration, ought to move the indignation of every lover of Pointed archi- 

 tecture. At Rouen, too, aud Amiens (we believe) also, the same work of 

 destruction has been commenced, and under the same pretext. One zeal- 

 ous and uncompromising denouncer of these innovations — M. Didron — has, 

 indeed, been able, in many instances, by the respect attached to his pro- 

 found antiquarian learning, to restrain the progress of the mischief — and, 

 in a country where the reparation of public monuments is in the hands of 

 the government, his voice must have effect; but here we have no such 

 general supervision, and can only trust to the slow progress of public 

 opinion for the protection of our churches.* 



If there must be a destruction of ancient architecture it ought, at least, 

 to proceed on principles which are consistent with themselves, but even 

 this is not the case. Before taking a step which cannot be retraced, the 

 least exercise of prudence is to lay down a general plan of our future 

 progress ; and yet, iu church-restoration this has been hitherto impossible. 



• We do not mean to assert absolutely that It is impossible for a case to arise where the 

 partial demolition of ancient work is justihable, but we certainly are quite incapable of 

 foreseeing such a case. It may be as well to allude here to to an instance where a laud- 

 able work of restoration is likely to be marred by indiscretion in the particular noticed in 

 the text. Oue of the proposedalterationsof Jesus College Chapel, at Cambridge, is the sub- 

 stitution of an Early I^ngiish east window fi^r that ot ancient 1 erpendicular architecture, at 

 jireseut existing in the choir. On what principle this demolition Is commenced it is not 

 very easy to see : it is not even pretended that it will be possible to adopt lancet archi- 

 tecture throughout the entire building, tor the Perpendicular windows in the transepts 

 and nave are not to be removed. In fact, a destruction of all the chapei except the lancet 

 architecture would almost involve the rebuilding ot the whole edihce. Besides, there 19 

 no more reason to retain parts anterior th in those posterior to the lancet period, and, to 

 be consistent, the piscina aud the Norman gallery in the north transept ought to be de- 

 stroyed— or rather, it the principle be to carry oat the original idea of the edihce, then 

 the Norman ought alone to be retained. It the great east window be, as we believe, 

 the work of Bishop AlcocU, the founder of thecoUege, to whom the present institution is 

 chiefly indebted for Us existence, respect for his memory should be an additional mgtive 

 for preserving one, and hot the least, of the records of Lis munUiceuce, 



