18^6.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECrS JOURNAL. 



235 



It is obviously impossible that mere streaks and crevices on a wall can be 

 dignified by the appelatioa of mouldings, for they never tould be made to 

 have tlie same value and importance ; but even if for the sake of argument, 

 we set aside tliis unavoidable inferiority, is it not palpably absurd to decorate 

 a building all over with mouldings ? These decorations owe their effect to 

 their rarity and their contrast with the simpler portions of the structure ; and 

 the value of them if applied every where indiscriminately is entirely lost. 

 There is nothing in which the Greeks showed' themselves more eminent than 

 in introducing mouldings just where they were required and no w/tere else. 

 It cannot be expressed too emphatically that the whole effect of mouldings, 

 the whole of the relief which they afford, arises from their being used sparing- 

 ly and marking distinctly the outlines of separate portions of the building. If 

 they be used otherwise CEmfusion — not enrichment — is the result. The dressings 

 of a doorway are not new accessories, but answer a distinctive purpose : the 

 listel or horizontal fillet, which in a Doric order separates the triglyphs and 

 metopes from the architrave is essentially a constinctive decoration for it 

 exhibits the method by which the joists of the roof are supported by the 

 columns. And in the same way we might explain the purpose of every 

 moulding used in pure classic architecture ; but mere channels cut in the sur- 

 face of the walls canhot answer any purpose either real or imaginary : they 

 do not serve to mark distinct parts of the building, for they merely separate 

 one portion of the wall from auother exactly similar portion ; they do not, 

 like mouldings properly so called, divide the building into large well-detined 

 masses, but cut it up into a confused multitude of little parts. 



If the composition of a building be properly managed it will present no 

 large continuous surfaces which unless so scored all over appear blank and 

 naked. If we examine actual examples of rustication we shall find it to be a 

 mere make-shift expedient, the palliative of an evil which if the architectural 

 grouping had been duly attended to, would never have been called into ex- 

 istence. It may be safely asserted that no buildings whatever, be the style 

 adopted, can be architecturally effective unless some portions of the building 

 throw shadows on the remainder. This consideration is much overlooked in 

 the present age. The great defect of modern architecture is that it seldom 

 displays sufficient depth of shadow ; it is usually to shallow and flat ; it is 

 not made up of large strongly defined masses, and the variety which ought to 

 be obtained by depth is imperfectly compensated for by surface-decorations 

 and minute details. Rustic work is essentially a surface-decoration, aud for 

 that reason alone, if no other existed will find little fevour among those who 

 would restore architecture to that place among the fine arts which it once 



If the architect had to deal, not with solids, but surfaces, he might take 

 lessons of a line-engraver and the River farade of the Palace of Westminster 

 would be perfect. A mere fafade however no more constitutes a palace, 

 than a modern church-front constitutes a church. Much more than this is 

 necessary — especially in classic architecture of which the constituent forms 

 are so few and simple that unless the effective disposition of light and shadow 

 be observed, meretricious ornaments mjist be resorted to prevent the mono- 

 tony and nakedness becoming absolutely intolerable. There is scarcely any 

 thing which has more debasing and fatal infloence upon art than a system of 

 tave trouble expedients : among them must he reckoned all supertlaus sur- 

 face-decorations, and especially rustication. We know but one class of build- 

 ings for which this kind of masonry is appropriate— namely, prisons, which 

 it seems agreed should be as ugly as possible, consistently with security. In 

 them at least rustic masonry is in sufficiently good taste and accompanied by 

 the ornaments of skull and cross-bones, and iron chains will constitute a 

 species of perfectly symbolic architecture which may be safely recommended 

 to the admiration of the Cambridge Camden Society. 



The subordinate decorations of a building ought, it is clear, to correspond 

 in character to style of architecture to which they are adopted. A most im- 

 portant consideration under this head is that while Medioeval Architecture 

 delights in free forms, in Classic architecture, perfect finish and accuracy are 

 essential. An ancient church-tower of rough rubble work is a picturesque 

 object, however simple and unpretending the architecture may be, but if the 

 cella of Greek temple were built in a similar manner, can it be denied the 

 coarseness of the workmanship would be totally out of character with the 

 rest of the building. The delicacy and accuracy of outline which distinguish 

 Greek architecture are characteristics which would be naturally looked for in 

 a southern climate ; the bold and alpost rugged lines of northern architecture 

 «eem exactly to correspond to the energetic character of the people, among 

 whom they were produced. Now these considerations, simple as they ap- 

 pear, are of the utmost value in determining a question like that before us. 

 Rustic masonry displays ruggedness and coarseness of execution which, if 



what has just been said respecting the distinctive character of Classic and 

 Pointed Architecture be correct, show it to be inappropriate to the former 



style. 



This brings us to our last argument. These who defend the propriety of 

 rustic work seem totally to overlook this consideration — that they ought to 

 be prepared to adapt it to Pointed architecture as well as Classic, or else to 

 point out some characteristic differences between the two styles which render 

 rustication suitable for the one and not for the other. This however has 

 never yet been done ; on the contrary, any argument drawn from the com- 

 parison suggested would lead to the conclusion that if there be any style for 

 which this mode of decoration is suitable, it must be Pointed architecture. 

 The attempt to so apply it would, we apprehend, meet with universal ridi- 

 cule ; should not this feeling be a sufficient argument for abandoning rustic 

 masonry altogether ? 



To what heresies have we not given utterance ! We have condemned the 

 use of columns which support nothing, of show sides used as masks, of 

 pigmy columns used as window mouldings ; we have declared the attempt 

 to combine Classic and Medijeval architecture absurd ; and now we include 

 rustic masonry in our list of barbarisms. But what an amount of precedent 

 and written testimony is against us ! Does not evert/ one of the things 

 which we have condemned exist in St. Paul's Cathedral, the pride of the 

 metropolis, and one of the wonders of the world .' And yet we maintain 

 our position, simply because we have in no case substituted assertion for 

 argument. If we have in any case failed to prove our point we shall be very 

 glad to be set right. That in promulgating these opinions we must contend 

 against an enormous amount of educational prejudices is unavoidable ; but 

 it is better to do this than to let pure Classic architecture be forgotten in the 

 detestation of debased Classic architecture which the modern improved 

 taste for the Medixval styles has justly inspired. 



RESTORATION OF ST. BOTOLPH'S CHURCH, 



Boston, Lincolnshire. 



Among the Church Restorations, which the revival of Christian architec- 

 ture in the present century has instigated, few deserve more the public at- 

 tention than that of the Church of St. Botolph, Boston, Lincolnshire, both 

 from the celebrity of the edifice itself, and from the extent and excellence of 

 the work of which we make this brief notice. 



The church is a Decorated structure of the 13th century, originally con- 

 sisting of a nave aud chancel with side aisles as at present ; to this a magni- 

 ficent tower in the Perpendicular style, was added in the beginning of the 

 Hth century. 

 The dimensions are — Ft. In. 



Exterior length, including buttresses .. .. 305 8 



,, breadth, including porch .. .. 138 6 



Interior breadth of nave . . . . . . 98 6 



Interior height of inner roof of nave . . . . 62 8 



Span of arches . . . . . . . . 18 8 



Height of ditto .. .. .. .. 40 H 



r Ft. In. "I 



r, , ) Base o 9 I or o 



Columns -^ gj^^f^ 22 lO^f" •• •• ^' ^ 



Leap 1 Oj 



Tower — 



From the ground to coping stone of lower battlement I'lO 11 



From do. do. of upper battlement 55 4 



From base of lantern to top of stone-work of ditto . . 59 2 



From base of lantern to top of vanes .. .. 5 



Whole height of tower . . . . . . 269 5 



Tower base interior . . . . 22 ft. 5 in. x 26 5 



Glazed part of windows in tower (length) .. .. 52 



Below windows in nave . . 4 6 



Above ditto . . 4 8 



Being the largest church in the United Kingdom without cross aisles. 



The tower is a feature of such beauty and architectural celebrity as to 

 need no descripition here. The octagonal lantern by which it is surmounted 

 furnished the model from which that at St. Dunstans, in West Fleet-street, 

 was designed. 



The building is constructed of an oolite of great durability, procured, it is 



30* 



Thickness 



of walls I ] 



