220 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECrS JOURNAL. 



[August, 



speculative prejudices — that their mioda constaotly exhibited a practical 

 tendency entirely unknown to or unappreciated by those who now ape 

 their idiosyncrasies. 



We trust that the reader will perceive in the sequel that nur argumfnt 

 on the point before us has not been unnecessarily minute, for the whole 

 question of the luture development of Mediaeval architecture depends 

 upon it. If those who assume the oflice of pronouncing publicly on the 

 merits of ninderu church architects ground their criticisms on speculative 

 doctrines, such as those here alluded to, it becomes the direct interest of 

 architects to ascertain how far those doctrines are correct. 



What seems a fatal objection to doctrinal instruction by the aid of mate- 

 rial forms is, that the system never did and never can becoiue gene- 

 ral, and moreover that if it could, it would never be free from ambiguity. 

 This kind of teaching must belong to one or the other of two classes— sug- 

 Restive or conventional : that is to say, the forms in which it is embodied 

 must be either suggestive of their intention, or if they bear no outward re- 

 semblance to thethingtypified, their signification must be purely arbitrary. 

 To the first of these classes belong cruciformity and orientation which as 

 we have shown are liable to the objection of want of generality, because 

 occasionally they would from local circumstances become practically im- 

 possibilities. In the same class .if suggestive symbols most be ranked the 

 eastern triplet: a species of symliolism which makes out a case stronger 

 even than that derived from the two former species. In the case of 

 the eastern triplet the deviation from the general rule (if such rule existed) 

 was perfectly gratuitous and unwarranted by necessity : for it is impossi- 

 ble to suppose that the architect was ever practically compelled by local 

 requirements to build a window of five or seven lights in preference to a 

 triple window. What then shall we say of a conventual church like that 

 of .lesus College, Cambridge, for example? Were the worshippers poly- 

 theists? They must have been so if they derived a symbolical teaching 

 from the eastern window. 



The argument respecting ambiguity applies with equal force. If the 

 eastern triplet consisted of three separate and distinct windows, then it 

 tau?ht a heresy, and if the centre window were larger and more important 

 than the rest, it taught another heresy. The nature of these heresies need 

 not be here specified, they are both denounced in the Quicunijue milt, in 

 the expression " una est divinilas, oequalis gloria." 



But the ambiguity would become absolutely inextricable confusion 

 when forms possessing siinilar peculiarities were made to represent difi'e- 

 rent doctrines. For instance, if anything like system and distinctness were 

 to be maintained, it would he obviously necessary that all forms of which 

 the most distinguishing mark was their triplicity, should suggest one and 

 the same doctrine. The fleur-de-lys, for instance, three component parts 

 united by a band, ought to teach the same thing as the eastern triplet em- 

 bniced by one hood moulding. The fleur-de-lys however teaches some- 

 thing altogether ditVerent. It has, says the Ecclesinlogisl, " from the twelfth 

 ceotury at least, probably fur ages long anterior, been the recognized em- 

 blem of the Virgin Mother as such." We must beg the reader to take no- 

 tice of the wordg " recognized emblem," because we will show by another 

 quotation from the same place how far the emblem actually was recognized. 

 The reason of its being " appropriated as an oroamsnt to the seats of the 

 Laity in particular," was that it suggested what was peculiarly ■' the 

 peoples' doctrine." Now then how far did the people understand the 

 suggestion ? We are told that the popular name of this ornament (popie) 

 was derived from its supposed resemblance to a bundle of hemp. The old 

 church-designers had however "something more significant in view than 

 the mere giving of an ornamental finish to an otherwise plain seat-end. 

 Nor had they any intention of imitating ' bundles' of hemp or of any other 

 substance: that teas a mere fancy of the uorkmen." It appears therefore 

 that whatever may have been the intcJiiion of the designers, it failed of its 

 effect. The workmen misunderstood the meaning intended, and the people 

 generally committed the same error, for the name " papie" seems to have 

 been a popular one, and the result of a vulgar error similar ta that by 

 which " Pau and his Bacchanals" was corrupted into " the devil aad his 

 bag o' nails," which was a corniHoa sign of old inns. 



.So much for the efficacy of symbolic teaching, where the form of the 

 symbol was suggestive : with purely conventional symbols the matter must 

 have been still worse ; for here even the memoriu lechnkn, which afforded 

 some little help in the former case was wanting. To understand at all the 

 aaeaning of the types, constant reference must be bad to a written code. 



like that now used in the navy for interpreting signals made by flags or 

 rockets. Such a code has been compiled by Durandai, though never 

 authoritatively recognized. We confess, without much shame, that we 

 know as little of this work as we do of the " Aurea Legenda," or Butler's 

 marvellous " Lives of the Saints," and that little is obtained from merely 

 meeting with a few occasional extracts. Still, we apprehend, the great 

 body of the people, in the most flourishing times of the unreforraed church, 

 were in the same state of lamentable ignorance. At least we are certain 

 they are at present, and that there would be some slight difliculty in getting 

 them to read Durandus now, — if they did not, really we cannot see what 

 the use of the symbols would be. Itwould become the case of the rockets 

 without the signal book. 



Butsuppose the difficulty removed. Suppose the people were at last got 

 to study Durandus (which by-the-by seems as likely as that the inhabit- 

 ants of St. Giles's should take it into their heads to commit the Nautical 

 Almanack to memory), would not the labour of teaching be twice as great 

 as that required by a more direct method ? First the forms are to be learned, 

 then the code of interpretation has to be " got up," then the application of 

 the interpretations. But why go by such a circuitous route ? We are 

 convinced the thing would never answer. Among so many scholars with 

 very dilierent degrees of desire and aptitude for learning, so many mistakes 

 would occur that we should soon have to revert to the more direct process. 

 Complicated machinery is seldom successful in practice. 



But there remains another argument fur symbolism, one derived from 

 mere architectural considerations, and not connected with theological doc- 

 trines. It is this, that symbolism is a source of the beautiful— that truth 

 and beauty are so nearly allied, that material representations of truth must 

 exhibit beautiful forms. This is one of those showy sentiments which en- 

 trap unwary readers, especially if they have a taste for magniloquence. 

 But what is the fact? The beauty of the symbol depends, not on the na- 

 ture of the truth symbolized, but on the method of representation adopted 

 by the artist. If the artist have taste and genius the symbol may be beau- 

 tiful, if not, the symbol will most likely be absurd and ugly. The restric- 

 tion put upou the designer that the forms adopted by him shall typify ab- 

 stract ideas, will add so much to the difliculty of his task, as to have in all 

 probability the very reverse of a beneficial tendency. The design instead 

 of being improved (as it is arguedj by syniboiism, will most likely be 

 greatly injured : unless we suppose that the desire of symbolizing reli. 

 gious truth will necessarily be accompanied by the faculty for doing it in 

 a graceful manner — which is much the same thing assuft)osing that every 

 religious person is ipso facta imbued with good taste. We will not cite 

 examples to the contrary,* but we may at least mention one or two in- 

 stances which disprove the converse proposition, namely, that men imbued 

 with good taste are ipso facto religious. Material beauty is far better re- 

 presented in the paintings of Salvator Kosa, and Raphael, than moral 

 beauty in their lives and conversation. 



There seem therefore no reasons (except those which fauatacism would 

 suggest) why ecclesiastical symbolism should be more beautiful tliau any 

 other. The Chinese characters are a kind of symbolism, for they originated 

 in the representation of natural objects by conventional forms, so did Egyp- 

 tian hieroglyphics, so did our own heraldic devices. Is there any thing 

 of beauty or propriety in these forms ? We fail of discerning the graceful- 

 ness of a rampant spare-waisted unicorn, or a double-headed dragoa 

 covered though they be with Mediaeval rust, and honestly coufess that we 

 prefer the Elgin marbles. 



We have alluded in another place to the significant symbolism of skulls, 

 cross-bones, and chains, which decorate the front of Newgate gaol, as a 

 proof that symbolic architecture is not always beautiful, hut we have not 

 spoken yet of the profanity aud indecency occasionally exhibited by Me- 

 diieval symbols and grotesque carvings. The sculpture of the Hotel-de- 

 Ville of Louvain, for exampie, representing the mortal sins aud their punish- 

 ment, displays forms revolting to any but the foulest imagiuatiou. AgaiD, 

 tlie constant collocatiou of serious aud ridiculous subjects sanctioned by 

 Mediieval architects would be deemed intoleiable now. We have seen ia 

 an old continent churches an absurd representation of a raonk with his toe 

 in his mouth, &c. These and similar extravagances might be permitted in 



* Vet we may be allowed under this head to remind Ihe Ecclesiologiat of the fact men- 

 tioned Iiy our coleoiporury, ttial AtL-liljistiojj liaud ^uic tlKine niKt admiiatiou o( all ritUA* 

 lists) caused Inip-o .tout's to distiijure oue otlhe noijleiit 01 our CatUedrait, ola Si. Paul's, 

 wilb a dctesluLde Cormthiau porUco. 



