1 846.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



227 



the time of the ancient " moralities" or " mysteries," religious dramas in 

 which the Divine names were freely introduced among the dramatis jier- 

 sona, but no amount of precedent would suffice for their revival now. If 

 there be one instance more striking than another uf the necessity of distin- 

 guishing between the valuable and the valueless parts of Medieval art, it 

 is this of grotesque or monstrous devices. Nothing which is unnatural 

 can be beautiful, for nature is the source of all ideas of beautiful forms — the 

 heraldic monsters of the new Palace at Westminster, the hideous encaustic 

 tiles recently laid in the Temple Church, and if we remember rightly, 

 similar modern absurdities in the Round Church at Cambridge, are no 

 better thau simious displays of the faculty of imitation. 



Symbols such as these will never probably be ranked in serious argu- 

 ment among the valuable parts of Mediaeval architecture. But there re- 

 mains yet another class to be alluded to which may be termed historic 

 symbols, symbols employed in church architecture to represent not doc- 

 trines whicii are true through all ages, but current facts of ecclesiastical 

 history. We are not certain that this distinction was really made by an- 

 cient architects, hut notice it because it is laid down by Duraudus, and 

 adopted by modern ecclesiologists. To take an instance — 



" It is well known that all Media?val cathedrals either do now or did 

 formerly contain stalls in their choirs : we know also that in the primitive 

 basilcs there were no stalls in the choirs, but that the Divine offices were 

 sung standing. We know from history that stalls were not iutroduced 

 without a struggle. They however became a " fact," (to use a mueh 

 abused word), and what does Durandus say of them ? 'The stalls in the 

 church signify the contemplative ' Truly the con- 

 templative life in a healthy state of churchmanship is a mnst tit vocation 

 for the canons of a cathedral-church, and it is certainly not very hard in 

 this case to discern the analogy between type and antitype. But suppose 

 a vast increase of Bishops to be made in England under an improved slate 

 of churchmanship and cathedrals to be built in our poor and teeming trad- 

 ing and manufacturing town — Liverpool for instance and Sheffield— charity 

 and common sense would dictate that the canons of these cathedrals would 

 have a very diflerent vocation from their brethren at Liclifield or Ely ; 

 that ttiey would have in the strictest sense of the word to do the work of 

 Evangelists ; that they have to go forth us preachers of the rcry first riidi- 

 mcnts nf religion to a virtimUy heathen ynjiulation. Contemplation there- 

 fore to tliem must be a recreation not an occupation, and the symbolism that 

 should point them out as contemplatives vouhl not he borne out by facts . . 

 The cannn of the symbolism of choirs would then be embodied in the fol- 

 lowing form : — In some churches are found stalls. These stalls signify 

 contemplation, &c. (as in Durandus). In other churches built in large 

 towns to serve as missionary staliims, there are no stalls, but there the 

 Divine office is performed standing.* These choirs signify wretchedness 

 as it is said in the Prophet. ' How beautiful upon the mountains are the 

 feet of bim that bringeth glad tidiugs.' 



"We have, we trust, sufficiently vindicated the truthfulness of that 

 minute system of symbolism which is found in the writings of Duraudus 

 and other authors of the middle ages"! ! — Ecclesiolagi.it, p 226. 



After the reader has carefully perused this extract and noticed the pas- 

 sages which we have marked in italics, let him retiect on the result likely 

 to follow from the system here impliedly recommended. How much grati- 

 fied the good people of Liverpool and Sheffield would feel to have cathe- 

 drals on the terms suggested ! To be reminded continually by visible signs 

 that they, in contradistinction to the people of Ely, are heathen idolaters ! 

 The proposition forcibly reminds us of Sydney Smith's celebrated selections 

 from the Evangelical Magazine — "Christianity introduced into the parish 

 of Launton, near Bicester in 1807." " Chapels opened— Hambleton Bucks— 

 eighteen months ago this parish vras destitute of the Gospel: the people 

 now have one of the Rev, G. Collisou's students," &c. 



But the principal consideration in an architectural point of view is this — 

 we are told in the extract before us, that the kind of symbolism which 

 would be appropriate to a particular church at one time, at another " would 

 not be borne out by facts." How then shall the species of symbolism be 

 appropriate to each locality be decided upon ? Who will undertake the 

 delicate task ? And for localities halfway between the heathenism of 

 Sheffield and the godliness of Ely, what intermediate system of symbolism 

 shall be adopted ? Who will invent a finely gratuated scale of symbolism 

 which will exactly suit all the variations of that spiritual thermometer of 

 which Ely and Sheffield are boiling point, and zero respectively > And 



* We have alreaiy noticed the circumstance that tlie writers here quoted do not co:i- 

 aider it always imperative to observe tlie ordinary rules of Eimlisll composition. In 'he 

 expression " the Divine office is performed standing," the participle "standnitj" should 

 by the principles of" Syntax refer to the preceding noun " office ;" the Meaning is htvr- 

 ever. not that the Divine office stands— which is nonsense— but (we presame that the 

 canons stand when the Divine office is performed. 



when Sheffield has begun to improve— when the influence of the standing 

 canons has begun to tell upon the people— when the original symbolism is 

 no longer " borne out by facts," who is to make the alteration, and how is 

 to be ascertained the exact moment for making it? 



We are told that the main object of symbolism is not so much to teach 

 religion, as to honour it. We will not stop to prove that the system here 

 advocated would lead to the grossest materialism and dishonour religion by 

 making it appear ridiculous ; it is enough for us to show that the scheme is 

 impracticable. It would be beyond the collective wisdom of the Cambridge 

 Camden Society, it would be beyond the compass of all human sagacity 

 and invention to overcome the practical difficulties here mentiooed. If 

 the system were a mutable one—true at one time and not true at another, 

 then it, or at least the mutable portion of it, even though we wave all dis- 

 pute as to its actual merits, must yield to the fatal objection of its impracti- 

 cability. 



A large proporlion of the whole number of church symbols, namely, the 

 historic class is thus disposed of. Respecting the remainder, those sym- 

 bols which refer to immutable truths, we may be certain that the greatest 

 part, like the " popies" aforesaid, would be the subjects of vulgar perver- 

 sions, which would render them useless if no worse. The representation 

 of abstract truths by material forms is difficult enough even when those 

 forms are the 20 letters of the alphabet combined into words and sentences. 

 If the greatest of philosophers and divines have found all the resources of 

 written language scarcely sufficient for the perpicuous explanation of their 

 thoughts, if the church herself have been unable to express her articles and 

 rubrics with a distinctness which would place them beyond insidious mis- 

 representations and additions, what shall we say of the difficulty of ex- 

 pressing the same abstruse doctrines by the unyielding form of architecture? 

 To every unprejudiced mind it must be obvious that bricks and stones, 

 however contorted, could never answer the purpose elfectually, that the 

 architecture must become a congeries of hideous and absurd devices, and 

 above all, that where honour and reverence were intended vulgar ridicule 

 and desecration must infallibly ensue. This consideration disposes of the 

 second sort of symbols ; and so the whole delusion melts into air — thin 

 air. 



To some of our readers we may perhaps appear to have been unneces. 

 sarily minute in the arguments by which tve arrive at this conclusion. 

 There are some who would have us treat church symbolism as an obvious 

 absurdily, not worth arguing about : and the whole doctrine is doubtless 

 one which might easily be made the subject of sarcasm and ridicule, but 

 we have been careful to view every part of the question seriously and pa- 

 tiently, because upon the due settlement of it greatly depends the future 

 development of Medieval architecture. The principal arguments brought 

 forward by those who advocate the exclusive adoptiou of the Decorated 

 style are founded on symbolic considerations ; those who would adopt Ro. 

 manesque exclusively rest their case entirely on the supposed doctrinal 

 interpretation of the prevailing forms of that style. Having then explained 

 to the best of our power the grounds on which we would exclude from the 

 question of the future developmeut all symbolic considerations, we shall 

 have less difficulty in discussing the remaining part of the question, namely, 

 the purely architectural considerations. 



To begin with the consideration of the architectural value of Romanesque 

 or Norman architecture, our own opinion is decidedly against any very 

 general re-adoption of that style. It is essentially imperfect in its general 

 character and individual details. It is a transition style — not a transition 

 from one of two congruous modes to the other — but a transition from the 

 Classic mode to another in every way antagonistic to it, the Pointed. Ro- 

 manesque constantly exhibits traces of the effort frequently made iu Roman, 

 namely, that of reconciling two directly opposite and irreconcileable modes 

 of construction, tiiabeation or construction by straight beams, and arcua- 

 TioN or construction by arches. Every transitional or mixed style must of 

 necessity be incomplete : and for this reason a great objection will always 

 exist against the revival of Romanesque, It does not however follow that 

 because it is an incomplete style that it is absolutely valueless. It is an 

 important rule of criticism that a work of art may have beauty and yet not 

 be perfectly beautiful. Now this we apprehend is precisely the case with 

 Romanesque architecture; the very eflbrt to combine two incongruous 

 modes was the source of beauties which belong exclusively to this faulty 

 but effective style. The enormous massive pillars and walls are evidences 



29* 



