1842.1 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



117 



REVIEWS. 



Th Present Slale 0/ Ecdesiaslical jirchileclure in England. Dublin 

 Review: No. XXIII. 



The satisfaction we feel at meeting with an architectural paper of 

 such very unusual extent— for its length exceeds a hun'lred pages, 

 with numerous foot notes in small type, and illustrated, besides, with 

 17 plates— our satisfaction, we say, is greatly abated, at tinding so 

 verv large a portion of it devoted to non-architectural matters, and, in 

 fact, the subject itself made a stalking-horse to ecclesiastical contro- 

 versy to lamentations for "the desecrated state of England's churches 



after the great schism of the sixteenth century," intermixed with such 

 orcasiona? specimens of holy hatred and pious execration as that 

 where the writer denounces " the blasting infiutnct of Protestantism 

 and Paffanism combined !" From this last somewhat startling ex- 

 pression°the tone and spirit of the article may easily be inferred ; and 

 though there is occasionally a show of candour, in complimenting those 

 who uave evinced a desire to restore, to a certain extent, some of the 

 forms that have fallen into disuse, into our church-service, we cannot 

 help looking upon it as no better than cajolery. The interest pre- 

 tended to be felt can hardly be sincere, otherwise than as it proceeds 

 perhaps from the latent hope that the return to some ancient usages 

 will proceed, step by step, till ail shall have been restored ; and, with 

 those external customs and usages, creeds and points of doctrine like- 

 wise. Sincere, however, or not, it certainly does appear to us, that 

 the concern here expressed in regard to our protestant churches and 

 their architecture, is somewhat inconsistent — not to call it officious — 

 somewhat too ravich akin to the concern we may suppose the Bishop 

 of London to give himself in regard to the synagogues and (Quakers' 

 meeting-hous>!s, and the forms and regulations adopted in the various 

 sectarian places of worship in his diocese. But we are now falling 

 into the error we have just animadverted upon as pervading the article 

 in the Dublin Review, and therefore quit such remarks as those just 

 made, for others of more immediate interest to our readers. 



We are so very far from being opposed to reform in our present 

 system of church architecture, tnat we consider it loudly called for, 

 since, with compar.»tively few exceptions, the numerous churches 

 erected in this country of late years are the very reverse of satisfac- 

 tory, being stamped not only by the meanness occasioned by injudicious 

 parsimony and mistaken economy, but by downright vulgarity and 

 pertness of character. We are aware that architects will say the 

 fault does not at all rest witli them, since they do as much as the funds 

 afforded them will allow. We must, however, plainly tell them that, 

 as often as not, they do not accomplish au much as they might do, 

 merely because they aim at so vtrij much mca thin can possibly be 

 accomplished under the respective circumstances. If a design answers, 

 ns far as name goes, to some particular style, by the forms adopted 

 for windows, and a few other features of that kind, no attention is paid 

 to the genius of the style itself, or to such treatment of it as is requisite 

 to keep up its proper character. Seldom, too, is any regard paid to the 

 exigencies of the particular case, for many new churches look as if the 

 designs for them had been merely copied, w ith some trivial alteration, 

 from those pattern-books of them published for the benefit of country 

 architects, and brought down to the taste of parish committees. Or, 

 does a design happen to be objected to, as loo expensive, or as other- 

 wise requiring some curtailment, a very easy remedy is resorted to, 

 namely, that of paring it down, or lopping off from it, hy which process 

 it must of course become simj/lifi'id; and a most simple-looking affair it 

 generally turns out, looking very much like a cock thai has been 

 stripped of all its feathers. 



Now the fact is, nearly all our old village churches rise up in judg- 

 ment against modem church architects — at least the majority of them. 

 Such structures may be homely, but they are not vulgar ; they may be 

 uncouth, thev may be even mean, may be rude enough both in con- 

 struction ami material, but they are never vulgar, except, indeed, 

 where they have undergone the process of " beautifyicg" to such 

 extent, that their original and proper character has been destroyed. 

 It is unquestionably true that, for the impression they m.ike both upon 

 the eye and the mind, buildings of the class alluded to are more or less 

 indebted to the effects of time. Equally true is it, that it is beyond the 

 power of the aichitect to create antiquity, and confer on his, buildings, in 

 addition to the venerable appearance, the accumulated associaliunA 

 derived from it. Still, apart from that element of their character, 

 there are others which recommend the class of churches alluded to, if 

 not exactly as models, as stiidii.^ at the present day, which, if properly 

 turned to account would go far towards correcting that insipid triviality, 

 and that vulgarity, which, together with a certain uncomfurtable look 



of starvation and tiauntingness combined, are the besetting sins of most 

 of our modern soi-ttisanl Ciothic churches, and not least of all those 

 which, because they are stuck full of naked lancet-holes, assume to them- 

 selves the title of the early English style, whereas they have in fact 

 nothing whatever of the character of that style ; nothing of the feeling 

 belonging to it, r.or aught of that which gives it value. One exceed- 

 ingly great fault in the church architecture of the present day arises 

 from the meagreness and formality produced by a number of uniform 

 apertures, stuck so closely together as not only to destroy all repose, 

 but produce a very disagreeable appearance of want of substance ami 

 solidity. It is true, in the later perpendicular style the proportion of 

 the apertures to the solids is very much greater — so much so, that many 

 structures in it may be compared to lanterns, being in fact nearly all 

 window ; but then the character is of a very peculiar kind, the whole 

 forming a consistent design of elaborate screen-work, as it were, which 

 would almost admit of being perforated throughout. Instead of being 

 mere gaps, the windows themselves are filled with screen-work, with 

 numerous mullions, transoms, and tracery, so as to combine the appear- 

 ance of strength with that of richness. Where, on the contrary, the 

 windows are so far from contributing at all to decoration that they are 

 little more than so many blank surfaces of glass, with scarcely any 

 external moulding or finish to the apertures — as is the case with not a 

 few of our modern-antiques, or pseudo-early-English — they ought to 

 be as few, in otlier words as wide apart, as possible. 



If very few architects seem to understand simplicity, there are as 

 few who seem to he able to appreciate the value of sobriety in design; 

 or we might suppose that sobriety is so exceedingly expensive a 

 quality that they cannot afford to make use of it, except on very rare 

 occasions. Be that as it may, it is certain that much of what is more 

 or less unsatisfactory, if not decidedly reprehensible, in our recent 

 church architecture, arises from a want of attention to sobriety in com- 

 position. Hence nioderate-si^ed churches are made to look like 

 miniature editions of large ones ; owing to which preposterous am- 

 bition, instead of gaining in importance, they become more insignificant 

 in appearance than smaller ones with the proper character belonging 

 to them as such. While it does not absolutely exclude a higher degree 

 of decoration than usual, sobriety requires that the decoration itself 

 should be applied somewhat sparingly ; that the features of the com- 

 position should be few, but carefully studied, and individually satis- 

 factory and capable of bearing the test of examination. Richness 

 there may be, but sobriety and trumpery are totally irreconcilable with 

 each other. 



For railing attention to this point we may very well be excused, 

 since it is one that is oftener tliin not completely overlooked ; though 

 were it attended to, we should behold fewer of the miserable minikin 

 abortions and spawnings of church architecture that now meet our 

 eyes. Intimately connected with the disregard ot sobriety, there is 

 another very prevalent f lult in designs of the class alluded to, namely, 

 excessive meagreness and monotony of composition, quite the reverse 

 of what is observable in buildings that are or ought to be looked to as 

 examples, or at least, as studies. Assuredly it is not a little incon- 

 sistent, that while so much stress is laid upon style, and so much 

 importance attached to precedent, the character of the one and the 

 authority of the other should be utterly disregarded — ifnottiuiversally, 

 far too frequently — in general design or composition. Our modern 

 Gothic churches have for the most part an exceedingly offensive box-like 

 appearance, without anytliing to break the outline, cither horizontally 

 or on the plan; without anything to take off from the flitness and 

 insipidity of the elevations, to produce effect of light and shade, and 

 contrast of lines in perspective. Consequently, unless the design be 

 of very superior quality as to beauty of detail and execution, the whole 

 structure is apt to look deplorably naked and bald. 



As we write not to compliment or flatter, but if possible, to instruct 

 and improve, we must speak out plainly, anil tell the profession that, 

 if we may judge from their essays in it, they have yet very much to 

 learn in regard to the proper tnalinml of Gothic architecture, and, we 

 might perhaps add, of Grecian also. It may be that they are fre- 

 quently thwarted by the obstinacy and ignorance of other persons — b^ 

 that collective stupidity which calls itself a committee, and which 

 insists upon a design being accommodated to its own notions and 

 whims. ( >n which side the fault rests, or whether it is to be shared 

 between both, we jiretenil not to say; but we will say that if the 

 character of Gothic architecture, or of any of the styles belonging to 

 it, cannot be better kept up than it usually is when such style is applied 

 to modern churches, it becomes a question whether it would not b^ 

 better to repudiate it altogt-tlier, or at any rite to employ it only 

 where circumstances allow of its being properly kept up in every 

 respect. 



For the interiors of churches as at present required to be laid out, 

 the greatest possible extent of accommodation .as to sitting room being 



