lS-)6.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



265 



raoval of Our Saviour from the Cross, and a cross on each side for 

 the thieves. The principal cross and figures would have occupied the 

 centre compartnient, and one of the other crosses, with the thieves and 

 subordinate ligures, the sides ; — but although thus separated, the sulyect 

 was so well managed and balanced, as to appear one picture. The whole 

 was treated as a night srene, and lighted up with burning fuel in vessels 

 with long handles, held by attendants ; giving a sombre and grand effect 

 to the solemnity of the scene. The upper windows would have contained 

 the " Wise Men's Olfering," consisting of splendid figures of all nations, 

 attending on camels with canopied seats, and other display of Oriental 

 magnificence, seldom before embodied in one picture. These would also 

 have occupied the three upper compartments, as one picture. Thus would 

 have been exhibited the Birth and Death of Our Saviour, treated in a bold 

 and original manner, and, from the well-known talent of the artists, could 

 have been executed in a way that would have revived the art of glass 

 painting, and have been a proof that tliere are now those who can produce 

 better things than ever ancients did, and redeem the art from its present 

 degraded state. This sketch was by Mr. Corbould, and was to have been 

 painted on glass by Mr. Hoadley,from Mr. Corbould's cartoon, who would 

 otherwis* have assisted in the progress of the work. 



The St. James's window has been in contemplation so long back as 

 thirty years, when Mr. Backler was actually commissioned to make a de- 

 eign from the Transfiguration by Rall'aele, and was engaged to execute 

 the work, but by some unforeseen circumstances has been unfuriunately 

 delayed to this day to give place to another, who declared himself incom- 

 petent to paint the window in the style required, but was nevertheless 

 chosen for that purpose! 



We do not so much complain of Mr. Wailes, — he would have been to 

 be pitied, had he not pocketed the good round sum of 1,000Z, for his labours, 

 which may, in some measure, cover any little annoyance he may receive 

 from the iadignation of the public ; but we do blame the eommiltee, with- 

 out the least reserve, for allowing themselves to be seduced from the right 

 path and dictated to in a matter of such importance ; for it is not the St. 

 James's window alone that may be subject to this degradation, — but the 

 tendency to imitation is so strong in this country, that many other parishes 

 will follow this vile example, for although many excellent examples of 

 painted glass have been done of late years in distant parts of the country, 

 yet this abominable trash, called Mosaic work, is still patronised and se- 

 lected by a committee who, of all others, from its position in society, 

 should have known better. 



The pleasing effect of old stained glass, we well know, is not always 

 caused by good drawing; on the contrary, it is produced by harmony of 

 colours and a mellowness obtained by time. This gives that richness and 

 beauty so much extolled in ancient windows ; but it is no argument that 

 bad drawing should be used ; as it stands to common sense, that were 

 the subjects belter treated, the beautiful effect would have been greatly en- 

 hanced and the educated eye would not have been subject to the disgust 

 now experienced on viewing the caricatures so often seen on old glafes. 

 Let any one attempt to decipher the subjects of many ancient windows, 

 and he will find it as great a difficulty as transposing an Egyptian hiero- 

 glyphic* 



The Woolwich window, painted by Hoadley, is in the pictorial style, 

 from a cartoon by Corbould. By a singular coincidence, these are the 

 same artists who were to have executed the St. James's window, if the 

 committee had not been deterred from their good judgment by the ecclesias- 

 tical dignitary. This window is 14 feet high and 6 feet wide, circular 

 headed, and contains but a single figure — that of Christ bearing the cross, 

 with a wide border and pedestal beneath, the latter having been judiciously 

 designed to shorten the window and give the picture a better proportion ; 

 upon this the emblems of the palm branches are introduced with the touch- 

 ing motto — " Christ bearing His cross went forth." Ihe figure is colos- 

 sal, being at a great height and generally viewed from a distance; the fea- 

 tures of the face depict sorrow and suffering, and the hands and arms are 

 well executed and doing duty— not mere puppets to the figure, as at St. 

 James's ; the drapery is broad, and allows of a depth and mass of colour 

 which give dignity to the picture, exhibiting those splendid ruby and 

 purple tints said, by the ignorant, to be lost; the border judiciously intro- 

 duces the passion flower, well executed aud entwined in scroll work. 

 There is a grave solemnity about this single figure that strikes the be- 



* At tUe time of ttie Revelntion. many of the painted windows in our catiiedrals were 

 taken down and pacj^t-d away in tiiding places, to be secured irom the violence of the 

 Puritans. When th- glass was subsequenily replaced in the windows, the wnrk was fre- 

 quently confided to those who were iKiperfectiy acquainted with the original design and 

 therefore unable to reproduc* it accurately. 



holder with religious reverence, at the same time there is a pleasing har- 

 mony in the colouring and design of the rich border, which relieves the 

 principal composition. It is a contrast — and a bold one too— to that style 

 we have just denounced in the St. James's window, and so much admired 

 by ecclesiastic patrons of the art. We would seriously advise these gen- 

 tlemen to look '' upon this picture and on this," and try for once to clear 

 their vision, so as to distinguish gold from tinsel, art from kaleidescope, 

 talent from mechanism, and then decide whether 'twere better to remain 

 in ignoi'auce or to recant those bi^olted notions they have heretofore so 

 strongly held, and, although at the elevenlh hour, to assist this degraded 

 art, and make it one worthy of an intelligent nation. 



ARCHITECTURAL IMITATIONS. 



esse quam videri malebat. 



In the introductory note to the present volume it was stated that our 

 architectural criticisms would be based on the doctrine of faithfulness in 

 architecture; and accordingly in the paper immediately following, the prac- 

 tise of using imitative materials in building was discussed and condemned. 

 It was hoped that this and similar papers, if they failed of producing absolute 

 conviction, would at least preclude the chance of our views on the subject 

 being misapprehended. It appears, however, from some observations in our 

 last number, that this hope was ill-founded, for we are by a side-wind ac- 

 cused of uttering sentiments which, if legitimately carried out, would lead 

 to a condemnation of the use of gilding in architecture. 



Gilding, as ordinarily employed, is not a deception. No one who looks at 

 the gilded boss of the vaulting of a church-roof is deluded for an instant 

 into the idea that what he sees is solid gold. Not only is he not deceived, 

 but there is no attempt made to deceive him; for the position of the boss 

 among other stones sculptured in a similar manner, and many of them painted 

 of different hues, plainly shows that the gilding is nothing more than a 

 means of giving to the stone a beautiful colour. When however gilding is 

 used to make the substance beneath it seem to be solid gold, it becomes at 

 once a paltry contemptible deception. The flashy gentleman (or gent) who 

 wears gilded rings will generally prove, like his jewellery, a counterfeit : not 

 in outward appearance only, but in education, feeling and language also, he 

 will be found to be a gentleman in semblance alone. 



What matter, it is nsked, though the beauty which invests works of art 

 be only skin-deep.' If it be no matter ai aW, why then should stone and 

 marble and costly woods be in any case preferred to less expensive materials ? 

 If the deception can be practised to perfection, why should we have the least 

 preference for the reality.' But as a matter of fact we have that preference 

 — there is not an architect in England who would not always, if he could 

 afford it, use real stone rather than the most perfect counterfeit. The ex- 

 istence of this feeling proves that the mere excellence of the counterfeit does 

 not remove all objection to it — that the imperfect nature of the deception is 

 not the onli/ argument again t its employment. 



Let us suppose it to be discovered hereafter that the noble piers of the 

 nave of Canterbury Cathedral are not Portland stone but Portland cement, 

 and that the shafts of the Norman choir are not Petworth marble but stucco 

 overlaid with black varnish, and that the beautiful foliated ornaments of the 

 crockets, pinnacle-work, &c. were not sculptured by the hands of skilful 

 artists, but were run in moulds by common workmen — would our admiration 

 of the building be increased or diminished ? Why should it be diminished .' 

 The imitation was perfect; we have supposed it to remain for centuries 

 without being discovered, and though the beauty be only skin-deep there was 

 no outward signs to reveal that circumstance. 



Or to take a commoner illustration — the descriptions of public entertain- 

 ments usually enlarge on the magnificence of the display of gold and silver 

 plate, and the splendour of the jewellery work by the guests. Would the 

 description be more or less glowing if it were found that what seemed gold 

 or silver was merely electro-plated, and that the diamonds were only paste? 

 Why should people care to have the Hall-mark on their dinner-service.' 

 Britannia metal is exactly the same colour as silver. 



But we are told that it is no argument against deceptions, that they are 

 " apt to be paltry." This may be disputed — for if all the paltry imitations 

 were got rid of there would be scarcely any left todispute about. And is it 

 not obvious moreover that those who practise p.iltry imitations will shield 

 themselves under the sanction of those who defend more costly deceptions ? 

 So that in fact these defenders are in fact fairly chargeable with providiug 

 excuses for the most miserable expedients of sham showy architecture. 



