150 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



[Mat, 



windows of the octagon, above the arches opening into the aisles, and 

 ranging with the clerestory of the nave. 



In assuming it to be an "essential principle of Pointed architecture that 

 the north and south walls of a church should have windows, because you 

 find this to have been universally the case in ancient examples of the art 

 practised by its inventors," you, in fact, deny the applicability of Pointed 

 architecture to any church that is not insulated ; or, in other words, you 

 declare that no circumstances can warrant the construction of a church in 

 immediate contact with other buildings on either hand. This may, or may 

 not be. All I desire of my critics is a fair consideration of the conditions 

 under which my church has been built. They were imperatively these : — 

 the Gothic style, and no north or south windows ; the latter resulting from 

 the economy which required a maximum building on a minimum space, 

 and therefore precluded any north or south area. The question was, whe- 

 ther a certain number of Christians should remain without church sitting- 

 room, or whether a church without north or south windows (in the Gothic 

 style) should be built? 



I shrunk not from the attempt to reconcile the demands of my employ- 

 ers with the limits of my means ; and considered, that no " essential prin- 

 ciple" of architecture (be it " Pointed" or otherwise) would be compro- 

 mised by the modification of ancient example to modern purposes. I did 

 as I conceived the old architects would have done under the different 

 necessities of protestant worship and other peculiar circumstances of 

 means and situation ; and I am not aware that any, who have seen the 

 result of my endeavours, have pronounced them unsuccessful. 

 I am, Sir, 



Yours truly, 



George Wightwick. 



[The difference between Mr. Wightwick's opinion and our own respect- 

 ing the subject of the letter which he unnecessarily apologises for sending, 

 is, probably, less than he himself imagines. Where the question arises, 

 as he has stated it, " whether a certain number of Christians should re- 

 main without church sitting room, or whether a church without north or 

 south windows (in the Gothic style) should be built," we must answer at 

 once that the attainment of the main purpose of the building should be 

 preferred to all considerations of architectural beauty. 



It is conceded, however, by the phrase " modification of ancient ex- 

 ample," that the mode of construction suggested is modern. The only 

 nuestion between Mr. Wightwick and ourselves is, whether the ancient 

 architects could have been induced to adopt this mode. We think not, 

 and will give the reasons of our opinion consecutively. 



I. Ancient precedent is universally in favour of this opinion. In all 

 ancient churches, without one single exception, the aisle or nave windows 

 are an essential part of the edifice. We do not mean to strain the argu- 

 ment of precedent beyond its proper limit, or to advocate the imitation of 

 the practice of our forefathers without examining the correctness of their 

 principles. But the plea of precedent is at least valuable thus far — that 

 the universality of it indicates something more than the uniformity of mere 

 rontine. It seems obvious that if the niedi;eval architects, under whatever 

 different circumstances they constructed churches, whether isolated in vil- 

 lages or among the crowded buildings of large towns, or within the walls 

 of fortresses, colleges, or abbeys, — whether the site were on a plain or on 

 the precipitous declivities of a feudal fastness, — under conditions the most 

 varied and frequently the most difficult, adhered to the principle of build- 

 in" nave windows, we have at least a presumptive proof that the inventors 

 of Pointed architecture, who may be supposed best acquainted with its 

 •ssential nature, considered this principle of paramount importance. 



It is to be remembered that the ancient architects frequently built 

 churches under the same difficulties, arising from the contiguity of secular 

 buildings, which embarrass modern architects. In the old cities of Nor- 

 mandy and Flanders the careful observer will notice cases of churches to 

 which large additions had been made after the site was closely hemmed in 

 by other edifices ; and it is frequently very instructive to observe the skilful 

 means adopted to procure access of light to the lower part of the added 

 portions of the building. 



II. The light of the clerestories was always subordinate to that of the 

 aisles until Pointed architecture began to decline. In Early English and 

 Decorated architecture, clerestories are not nearly so large as in Perpen- 

 dicular buildings. In the former styles the clerestory is in by far the 

 greatest number of examples omitted altogether ; and where it exists, the 

 windows are always small, and the light from them greatly subdued. la 



churches these windows are trefoils or quatrefoils or other single-light 

 apertures : clerestory windows of more than one light are confined to Ca- 

 thedrals or very large churches. In the Perpendicular architecture, how- 

 ever, especially in the latter and worst part of it, the fatal principle of 

 enlarging the clerestories was first introduced, and became a powerful 

 cause of the debasement of Christian architecture. To the very last, 

 however, the construction of nave windows was universally retained, even 

 when the art exhibited that sure and certain mark of decay — the substitu- 

 tion of elaborate details for simplicity and excellence of design. 



The preceding arguments are of the nature of historical considerations. 

 We wish, however, to guard ourselves against the snpposition that we 

 over-estimate the value of precedent. We trust that we shall never be 

 accused of irreverence for antiquity ; but, at the same time, it is mere 

 pedantry to affect ancient rules which have no intrinsic merit to recom- 

 mend them. Precedent always furnishes ]resumptice evidence, but there 

 are three causes from which it may become valueless. First, — an ancient 

 practice may have originated in prejudice or accident and not in fixed 

 principles. Secondly, — the fixed principles which influenced the ancients 

 may be proved, by subsequent knowledge, to be erroneous or insuthcient. 

 And lastly, — principles which were perfectly sufficient when first acted 

 upon, may, by time and change of circumstances, become obsolete. It is 

 therefore necessary, for the completeness of our argument, to show that 

 none of these causes operate in the present case to destroy the value of 

 the precedent. We proceed, therefore, to the arguments derived from 

 general considerations of the nature of Pointed architecture. 



III. The clerestory admits light in that part of the church which 

 appears most beautiful by a subdued light. The soleuinity then of 

 the appearance of a church is derived in a great measure from the com- 

 parative obscurity of its roofs. The dark shadowy roofs of Pointed ar- 

 chitecture have been favorite subjects of admiration with those who are 

 excellent judges of general architectural effects — the poets. In questions 

 like these, one example is worth a folio of dissertation, and if those who 

 are really anxious to get at the truth in this matter will take the trouble to 

 observe the difference between the mode of lighting the interior of the nave 

 of Westminster Abbey and Henry Vllth's Chapel, they will have no diffi- 

 culty in arriving at a conclusion. In the former case, the great body of light 

 (notwithstanding that much of it is unhappily obstructed by preposterous 

 monuments) comes from the aisles, and produces the most beautiful effect 

 by the shadows of the piers and arches. The light of the clerestory is 

 comparatively small, and must have been still less when the windows 

 were filled with stained glass. Let the reader, when he has carefully ob- 

 served the effect of the light in the nave, especially at the western end of it, 

 proceed to Henry the Seventh's Chapel— a building belonging to the very 

 last period of which the Pointed architecture continues to claim our re- 

 spect. In this chapel he will find enormous clerestory windows, admitting 

 a flood of light near the roof. The lower windows give but little light, 

 and that little is almost entirely obstructed by the stalls. Here, therefore, 

 the observer has one of the best instauces which ancient churches afford 

 of the effect of light admitted by clerestories. We have never heard any 

 difference of opinion among unprejudiced persons as to the solemnity of 

 this effect. It is not solemn — it is scenic— theatrical— the glare thrown 

 from the upper part of a stage when the foot-lights are lowered. 

 Compared with the effect of the nave of the Abbey, there cannot be a 

 doubt which exhibits the " dim religious light" of a Christian edifice. 

 The gorgeous multiplication of ornaments which profusely decorate Henry 

 the Seventh's Chapel dazzles the eye, but produces nothing like a solemn 

 impression, and the judicious observer goes away satisfied that the design 

 and general arrangement of this structure is incapable of that stately 

 grandeur which imposes a feeling of awe and reverence. Westminster 

 Abbey is by no means the most favourable instance which we could have 

 selected, but it was the most familiar. 13ut imagine some of the more 

 magnificent cathedrals of the continent lighted by the clerestories alone- 

 Antwerp, or that of Cologne, or Rouen ! Suppose, if it be possible, the 

 dim obscure roofs of these glorious edifices suddenly illuminated by a flood 

 of light ; — where would be the solemnity of the "long drawn aisles" then ? 

 Suppose the windows of these aisles darkened and every shadow reversed, 

 — will it be denied that the effect would be absolutely hideous ? Or if it 

 be objected that the question in dispute refers to a church and not to a 

 cathedral, we will cite the well-known instance of Great St. Mary's 

 Church, at Cambridge, where the dazzling light of the clerestory is not 

 only destructive of all solemn effect, but actually painful to the eye by its 

 violent contrast with the comparative darkness of the aisles. 

 IV. By the undue enlargement of the clerestory, the piers and arcbeg 



