17 ON CHURCH BUILDING WITH SOME PRACTICAL REMARKS ON BELLS AND CLOCKS. . J Dote on the J^utivor, castes ovi ^eldz&t £*-n £bf* £dj*isU*Cd ‘StAAA'Sort , letter Ser tAnwcvd £>0-rTA~ 0W SHetcj, j&lb at CA^ltin^ i Tbeidt t . GtfGdts, eevtdl CAWi'C' Ao t3 /rwca^sdr Mj^tU fees jxeretAds *v%~ fg /g, dfc 40ces ea-f e dhe J$cX4~ Xtyva- frCt^S Jl^tstsi, sl*>ls igdl a*i? to&& &JJl £+*' fg£~*d. Jit. ^ f*e^yiA^t £t Ge+raet Alurech, CAuerch . h^/ru4>a£der O-ffcer Ars Aesdr^e&Ctat^ &u *f*4*e A* theet ^e<%r+ j/c A)econti (Ration : RE-WRITTEN AND GREATLY ENLARGED. LONDON: BELL AND DALDY, 186, FLEET STREET. DONCASTER: G. AND T. BROOKE. 1856. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/lecturesonchurchOOgrim THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK. LECTURE I. ON GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE GENERALLY. Page Jggg-^||£S Gothic Archite&ure poffible now ? i A/# lUOa Mr. Rufltin’s and Mr. Petit’s opinions . . 3 Railway Church at Doncafter .... 6 Univerfal love of ornamental building . . 7 London Churches ........ 1 1 Scotch and American Archite&ure . . . . . 13 Popery of Church reftoration . . . . . 15 Hooker’s view of church-building . . . . . 16 Gothic Meeting-houfes ....... 17 Roman Catholic ftyle of church-building . . . . 18 Margaret Street and Gordon Square Churches . . . 19 Is Church reftoration Traflarian ? . . . . 21 Mr. Rulkin and his Writings ...... 23 Leeds Town hall ........ 25 Value’of aides and pillars ....... 27 Gothic principles ....... 28 Cambridge Univerlity Library . . . . . . 30 * The truly ancient ftyle’ ....... 31 John Evelyn and Chriftopher Wren ..... 32 New ftyles not to be invented ...... 33 Moral chara&eriftics of the Gothic mind .... 34 Progrefs of Gothic Archite&ure . . . . 35 Its mechanical fuperiority 36 The ( Five Orders’ 37 VI Contents. LECTURE II. ON THE EARLY GOTHIC STYLES. Page Style of the Georgian era .... 39 Obelifk fpires ......... 40 Domes .......... 41 Hydropathic Hotel at Ilkley ...... 43 Lombardic or Romanefque ftyle ..... 44 Italian Gothic ......... 45 Norman ftyle ......... 46 Twifted pillars ........ 49 Norman ftyle impoflible now ...... 50 ‘ Finifhing’ of ftonework ....... 51 Different names of the Gothic ftyles . . . 55 Origin of pointed ftyles ....... 57 Early Englifh ornaments ....... 58 Conventional foliage ....... 60 Early Englifh Church at Doncafter . . . . . 61 Spires .......... 62 Origin of window tracery . . . . . . . 63 Cufps 64 ‘ Geometrical’ ftyle ........ 66 True theory of window conftru6Hon . . . . 67 Five-light window . ....... 68 High and low arches ....... 69 Great Eaft Window of Doncafter . . . . 71 Tracery fhould be felf-fupporting . . . . 73 Broken-backed cufps ....... 74 Thin mullions ........ 77 Shallow fetting ........ 79 Bad excufe for it . . . . t _ g j Inftances of good and bad windows ..... 82 Semi-conventional celery-ftalk foliage . . . . 83 Ball-flower ornament ....... 84 Contents . vii LECTURE III. ON THE LATE GOTHIC STYLES. Page Diaper work 87 Divifion of Early and Late ftyles . . . . . 88 Mr. Rulkin’s penetration theory . . . . . 89 Proofs of its fallacy ........ 90 Flowing ftyle, how begun ...... 92 Ogee curves . . . . . . . . 93 Carlifle, York and Hull windows . . . . . 95 * Geometrical,’ 4 Complete,’ and 4 Univerfal’ ftyle . . 96 Interfering tracery ........ 97 Mullions of Flowing ftyle . . . . . . 99 Perpendicular ftyle . . . . . . . . 100 Great quantity of it . . . . . . . 101 Peculiar to England . . . . . . . 102 Flamboyant and Stump tracery ftyles . . . . 102 Perpendicular windows . . . . . . . 103 Principle of 4 continuity ’ . . . . . . . 106 Monotony of ornaments . . . . . . . 107 Fan tracery roofs . . . . . . . . 109 High and low roofs . . . . . . . . in Cathedral and parilh church pitch . . . . . 112 Bridlington Church roof . . . . . . . 1 1 3 Modern ftyle of roof-building 114 Vertical and continuous principles . . . . . 115 Not true Gothic principles . . . . . . 116 Approximation to Renaiffance . . . . . 117 Northern and Southern Gothic 118 Conclufion in favour of Geometrical ftyle . . . . 119 Contents . viii LECTURE IV. ON TOWERS AND SPIRES. Page Preponderance of Perpendicular towers . . . 120 Lincoln, Ely, Worcefter, and Hereford . . . . 12 1 Salilbury, Grantham, and Newark fpires . . . 122 Early Englifh ftyle very fuitable for towers . . . 123 Canterbury and Taunton . . . . • . 124. Gloucefter and York ...... 126 Mr. Rufkin’s theory of towers ...... 128 His unfair illuftration of it . . . . . . 129 Engaged and difengaged towers . . . . . 131 Superiority of central towers . . . . . . 132 Equality of converging roofs . . . . . 134 Internal lantern of tower . . . . . . . 135 Howden and Merton college towers . . . . . 136 Ufe of tranfepts . . . . . . . . 138 Bad effe£l: of corner towers . . . . . . 140 Modern fyftem wrong . . . . . . . 142 Theory of fpires . . . . . . . . 143 Large fpire-lights bad . . . . . . . 144 Indiftinfr outline of foreign churches .... 145 Their great height ........ 146 Modern mania for fpires ....... 147 Where they Ihould not be ufed . . . . . 14S The fpire city of Lichfield ...... 149 Value of broad towers . . . . . . . 150 Towers are campaniles . . . . . . . 151 Windows fhould be large and open . . . . . 152 Bell-gables ... ..... 153 Tower ftaircafes . . . . . . , . 154 Different claffes of towers . . . . . . 155 Tower of Doncafter Church . . . . . . 156 Higheft of all parifh church central towers . . . 157 Peculiarities of it . . . . . . . 159 Comparifon of it with others . . . . . . 161 Contents. IX LECTURE V. ON CHURCH RESTORATION, AND PARTICULARLY OF st. george’s church, doncaster. Different views of reftoration Page 163 Rebuilding of old ftones . . 165 Style to be adopted . 166 Deftru&ive reftoration 168 Old forms fhould be kept 169 Modern afpe6l of decay 170 Reftoration of Doncafter Church 172 Style of old and new churches . 1 74 Refemblances and differences 175 Variety of windows . 177 Clearftory arrangement 178 Number of bays too fmall 1 79 Importance of large area . 181 Size of old and new churches 182 Short tranfepts and chancel 184 Early choirs were fhort 186 North and fouth chapels . 187 Height of walls and roof 188 Tower a real lantern 190 Limeftone v. Sandftone 192 Flying buttreffes 194 Stone vaulting *95 Double pillar in chancel . 196 Triforium, when admiflible 197 Open room over porch 198 Fault in nave pillars 200 in buttreffes . 201 Caufes of thefe miftakes . 202 Proper drawings never made 203 Archite&s 1 charges 206 X Contents. • Page Archite&ural competitions 208 Building contradfs ..... 209 Importance of underftanding building . . . 211 Finifhing ....... Stopped at Doncafter .... 213 Charadler of old ftonework 215 Mouldings, how worked .... 217 Corduroy work ..... 219 Pointing Architedhiral drawings .... . . . 222 Reftorations on mathematical principles . . . 223 LECTURE VI. ON CERTAIN OTHER THINGS CONNECTED WITH BUILDING. Carving 225 Amateur carving .... 227 Sham carving ..... 230 Roofs ...... 231 Conftrudtion without tie beams . 2 34 Lead the belt covering 236 Blue and other Hates .... 237 Flat tiles . . . 239 Fittings of church .... 24.0 Different kinds of wood, and dry rot 241 Seats, conftrudtion of 242 Open feats and galleries 245 Stone pulpits ..... 247 Reading defks ..... 248 Painted glafs ..... 249 Monumental windows 253 Modern monuments .... 2 54 Plain glafs windows 255 Wall painting ..... . . 256 Altar rails ..... 257 Contents . xi Warming of churches Burying hot water pipes Ventilation Lighting . Organs Proper place for organ Page 258 259 261 262 263 264. ON BELLS AND CLOCKS. Bells ....... 266 Lift of large bells ..... 268 Bell-frames ...... . . . 270 Stays and Aiders ..... 273 Stocking of large bells .... 27+ Old form of bells not fuperfeded 275 The Weftminfter clock-bells 278 Trial of bells ...... 279 Bell metal, tefts for .... 281 Proper compofition negleCted . 283 Modern bells too thin .... 285 Contrails for recalling .... 289 Number of bells in a peal 290 New mode of hanging .... 292 Tanks and condu6lors .... 294. Church clocks ..... 295 Proper fize of dials .... . . . 298 Three quarters on four bells . . . 301 Modern clockmakers ..... . . . 302 Conclufion refpeCting Gothic Architecture 303 Mr. Scott and Mr. Petit .... 304 Architecture v. Architects 306 CORRECTIONS. Page 136, after laft line but two, add : At St. Albans on the contrary, where the tower is large enough to admit a very handfome gallery, as at Durham, without fpoiling the lantern, there is none. The belfry floor was removed fome years ago without providing any fubftitute, and confequently the peal of bells, which feemed to me very good ones though heard under unfavorable circumftances, can only be tolled in a melancholy way by pulling the clappers, inftead of making the cheerful noife of ringing. This ought to be attended to in the projected reftoration of this magnificent church, which is ftated to exceed even the longeft of our cathedrals in its total length, though now difgracefully cut in two by a public footpath through the building, befides other fpoliations. Page 251, line 3, for all- read at all. Page 269, for the dimenfions of the great Weftminfter clock bell, fubftitute : Diameter 9 feet 5 inches : Thicknefs 9 inches : Note E flat. The fourth quarter bell will confequently be B flat inftead of B 5 the third, E flat 5 the fecond, F 5 and the firft, G. WOODCUTS. T. GEORGE’S (New) Church, Doncafter, from the SSW. .... Frontifpiece. Page Norman doorway ..... 47, 48 Se6tion of Norman Church (W Tranfept of Whitby Abbey Early Englifh foliage Cufped arches, (fedilia) Five-light windows at Doncafter Great Eaft window of Doncafter . Broken-backed cufps Diaper work .... Decorated window, tranfttion Ogee arch .... Interfering tracery window Flowing windows, fmall . Perpendicular windows Fan tracery roof Bell gable . . Ground plan of Doncafter old Churc Ditto, of new .... Weft front of Doncafter Church (New) Buttrefles .... Poppy heads .... Bell hung on new plan mborne M nfter) 57 59 60 64 M ?i 75 87 92 93 97 99 103 109 153 182 183 >9 2 201 229 293 it PREFACE. HEN I undertook to give Tome lectures on the rebuilding of the Church which was burnt down at Doncalter three years ago this morning, I had no intention or expectation of appearing as the author of a book on Architec- ture. Still lefs, when thofe leCtures were publilhed by the delire of the Building Committee, and had expanded into what may be called a book, did I ex- peCt to be alked for a fecond edition of it within fix months, or any other time. I explained in the former edition how it came to differ as it did from the lectures as they were delivered. This one differs Hill more, having increafed to about three times the fize, befides being nearly all re-written, and made lefs local and more general in its character. I have however retained the ftyle and title of leCtures ; XVI Preface. partly becaufe I did not like to efface what may be called the perfonal identity of the book, though its name is changed to fuit its more general character ; and partly becaufe I prefer that convenient direCtnefs of addrefs to the dull circumlocutions and elaborate affectations of modefty, with which it is the faffiion now to exclude the two firft perfonal pronouns from literary ufe. And for the fame reafon, I have writ- ten as nearly as poffible in the fame ftyle as I ffiould have fpoken thefe leChires, faying everything in the way which feemed to me the molt likely to be at- tended to and underftood. For I do not agree with thofe who think that the dignity of literature requires writing to be as far removed as poffible from talk- ing, and feem to have compounded their own ftyle out of modern ACts of Parliament and bad tranfla- tions of Latin. 42, 4 ! 'ueen Anne Street , 28th February, 1856. Ground Plan of the Old and Early Churches. , A r ' f Jf / /„ ,,*• TOy $/)f" £y g-l gyx- b / LECTURE I. ON GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. HE author of the Stones of Venice has faid, in his c LeCtures on Architecture and Paint- 4 mg/ that it is impoffible we can have any real architects now, becaufe no man can be an architect unlefs he is alfo either a fculptor or a painter, and at prefent we have none who profefs to combine the two arts in either way. The laft inftance of the combi- nation, as far as I know, was in the laft century, when a painter-architeCt of the name of Kent enjoyed the patron- age of the faftiionable world, and the ridicule of Hogarth, for painting fome angels with two left legs, inftead of the ufual terreftrial arrangement of left and right, befides other mifdemeanors. It is true, as Mr. Rufkin fays, that Giotto and Michael Angelo were celebrated as painters no lefs than as architects, and that Phidias was the great fculptor as well as the great architect of his time. But three examples do not make a rule any more than three fwallows a fummer : nor thirty either, unlefs you are quite fure that 2 Mr. Rufkin and Mr. Petit, thirty others cannot be produced on the other fide. We may think about accepting Mr. Rufkin’s rule when he is prepared with the evidence to fhow us that the architects of Lincoln, York, Cologne, and a few other celebrated churches in the ftyle which we call Gothic, were either fculptors or painters. Of courfe I take for granted that he ufes the word fculptor in its natural fenfe, and not in the non-natural fenfe of a defigner of architectural ornament. If he does intend the word to have that artificial and unufual meaning, then undoubtedly his maxim is one of the mo ft undeniable of truths, being like many other well- founding maxims when reduced to their loweft terms, nothing but a truifm ; and as fuch, it need not fet us run- ning about the world in fearch of a fculptor-architeCt before we undertake to build. Another well-known writer on architecture fays, on the contrary, that modern architects are not bad architects, and that the Gothic ftyle is not a bad ftyle, but that fomehow or other the two do not agree together ; and therefore he alfo, by an oppofite road, arrives at the fame conclufion as Mr. Rufkin, that it is hopelefs to attempt to revive Gothic architecture with the help of the prefent race of architects. If this conclufion were really proved or proveable, by which- ever of thefe two oppofite methods, you and I had clearly better fave ourfelves any further trouble of hearing and delivering leCtures on Gothic Architecture, at leaft in any practical point of view, and hand it over to the antiquaries at once, and regard Salifbury Cathedral as only a kind of younger and handfomer filler of Stonehenge. But I am not convinced by Mr. Petit’s logic any more than by Mr. Rufkin’s : indeed it is plain that neither of on Gothic Architecture. 3 them are by their own ; for Mr. Rufkin is entitled to the credit of having done more than perhaps anybody elfe to teach the world that if we thoroughly underftood Gothic principles, we might build Gothic churches and houfes again, though we could not paint a picture or carve a ftatue which even the Royal Academy would admit, and Mr. Petit has publifhed feveral books with very ufeful illuftra- tions of a variety of Gothic buildings of all ages and coun- tries. If they had contented themfelves with delivering the lefs ftriking but more unqueftionable dictum, that no modern architect has yet fucceeded in building a church of which a mediaeval builder would not be afhamed, I fup- pofe nobody would have been difpofed to gainfay it. But it no more follows that Gothic architecture cannot be revived becaufe the belt architects will admit that they are only learning, and the word: will never begin to learn, than becaufe none of them profefs painting and fculpture as well as architecture. Still lefs is Mr. Petit’s inference to be adopted, that as the genius of modern architects has not fucceeded in any exiting ftyle, they would be likely to do better by trying to invent a new one, fome unknown com- pound of the Claflical and the Gothic ftyles. Moreover the buftnefs of church building cannot ftand over indefinitely until either a new and perfect ftyle fuitable to the genius of modern architects can be invented, or a new race of pictorial architects fhall appear and convince the Northern world that they have never yet known what Gothic Architecture really is. When Doncafter Church was burnt down, there was no doubt that it muft be built up again in fome ftyle or other. Were we to abandon all idea of making it again what it was before, and try fome- 4 Burning of York Minfter , thing To entirely different that no comparifon could be made ; or to do the beft we can to learn the principles on which fuch buildings were conftruCted 550 years ago, and fo endeavour to replace it by fomething equally good ? This is a queftion which the common fenfe or common feeling of mankind has for fome years paft always anfwered in one way. They have not waited to confider how near an approach we fhall be able to make to the character of the buildings we have to replace or reftore, but have determined to make the neareft approach we can. When the choir of York was burnt down by a madman, the public could have done without it, and fitted up the nave for the fervice of the Cathedral ; but they refolved at once to rebuild it, though they knew perfe&ly well that it would be in fome refpecfts inferior to the old choir, but feeling alfo that it would be difgraceful not to do the beft they could. When the nave was burnt down ten years afterwards by the careleflnefs of a clockmaker, that could have been ftill more eafily dif* penfed with, as it cannot be faid to be of any ufe at all. But it was not : again the public and the Chapter of the Cathedral refolved that fuch a ruin muft not remain, or even wait to be reftored till there fhould be again architects as capable of building real Gothic as thofe of the thirteenth or fourteenth century. And fo again here, although from the difficulties of the times we have not yet got the fum, or near it, which it was faid from the beginning would be re- quired to rebuild this Church properly, ftill there was fuch a ftrong and unanimous feeling expreffed at the great meet- ing prefided over by the Archbifhop foon after the fire, in favour of a complete reftoration in the beft poftible ftyle, that it was quite a matter of courfe that the work fhould be and D one after Church. 5 begun upon a plan which no one need be afhamed to finifh. Of courfe I know that there are people who have made the profound difeovery that although we have only raifed about three quarters of the fum we want, we have got far more than enough to have built a church capable of hold- ing any probable congregation. When the three hundred pence are raifed and fpent, there is never any lack of perfons to raife the cry that they might have been given to the poor — that is, given in their way inftead of our way : for- getting in the firft place that, however it is fpent, it goes in finding work for the poor to earn their living by ; and for- getting alfo, what is more material to the prelent queftion, that but for the zeal of thofe who gave it for the particular objedt, it would never have been raifed at all. Some thirty thoufand pounds have been fubferibed here to execute a work which the people who fubferibed it are determined to have done, and know cannot be done for lefs, or even for fo little. Does it follow that if we had given out that we did not want to build a church of anything like the character of the old Church, we ftiould have got from the public the fame fum, or half, or a quarter of it, to be fpent on general ecclefiaftical or charitable purpofes, for the benefit of the town of Doncafter ? What bufinefs, it would have been faid, has the town of Doncafter, with a Corporation in- come of £10,000 a year, and a Railway Company having its principal works there, and an income of a million a year, and eftablifhing there a c locomotive’ population of its own large enough to form a feparate parifti, to go about the country begging for fubferiptions to build churches for them? The public would never have believed it, if 6 Railway Churches. you had told them that the ftiareholders of this fame Great Northern Railway, the moft flourifhing concern of the kind in the kingdom, would neither contribute anything (there being no church rate for the purpofe) towards the rebuilding of the Church of the parifh where they own this vaft property, nor even allow their Directors when they propofed it, to fpend as much as the value of a couple of railway engines, or a dozen carriages, in building a church for this population of their own ; and that fan£Hmonious ftiareholders, and Railway newfpaper editors, and pro- feflors of c liberal opinions’ in the Houfe of Commons, would be feized with uncontrollable qualms of confcience at the notion of a Company with ten millions’ worth of property making fpiritual provifion for their workmen in the only way in which it can be made ; and on the ground that half of them muff be afliimed not to belong to the Church of England, but to be diftributed among the Inde- pendents, Unitarians, Baptifts, General and Particular, Pri- mitive Methodifts, Non Connexion Methodifts, Wefleyan Methodifts, Wefleyan Methodift Reformers, Quakers, Papifts,and Latter-day Saints, who appear by the laft cenfus to conftitute about the other half of the population of the Doncafter diftri£L* * Confidering the proverbial repute of joint flock companies, it ought to be recorded to their credit, that they have not all been equally ‘ confcientious’ with the ftiareholders of the Great Northern Railway Company ; witnefs the churches at Swindon, Wolverton and Crewe ; befides thofe built by mining companies in Wales, and by manufac- turers of various kinds all over the kingdom for their workmen. In all thefe cafes precifely the fame excufe might have been made for doing nothing, viz. that as it is impoflible to provide meeting-houfes and minifters for a dozen different fe6ts, to which half the population Univerfal Love of Decoration. 7 I do not think it is an inappropriate preface to a fet of leChires on Church building, before I notice fome of the objections which have occafionally been raifed againft the building of fuch churches as this of Doncafter, to remind you that in all ages and in all countries the love of magnificent building, and above all, of magnificent building for reli- gious purpofes, appears to be inherent in civilized men. The love of ornamentation indeed, of one kind or another, is inherent in all men, whether civilized or barbarous. Savages cannot ornament their buildings, partly becaufe they have none capable of ornament, but more becaufe they have not yet rifen above the loweft ftage of ornamentation, that of regarding their own perfons as the only, or the principal vehicle for ornament — a faCt fuggefting fome re- flections which I will leave you to make for yourfelves. The next ftage above that is the lavifhing of ornament upon things for our perfonal ufe only, or to be admired only in connection with ourfelves, as part of our own ftate and grandeur, a proof of our opulence, or an indication of our peculiar good tafte. I do not mean, of courfe, that all love of ornament of this kind is bafe, or unworthy, or unchriftian. This, like moft other things, is a queftion of degree ; and as you very well know, the fame ornaments which are becoming to the per- fon and the condition of one man or woman would be un- becoming to another; the plate, the furniture, and the domeftic ornaments which we fhould think one houfe bare and ill-furnifhed without, in another would be an inftan- belongs, it is very unfair to provide them for the other half who are willing to avail themfelves of Church of England inftru6tion ; in other words, that as you cannot do everything, the only right and confcien- tious way is to do nothing. 8 Ornamental Gardens. taneous fymbol of a vain, pretentious, and vulgar-minded owner. With thefe, or rather above them, may be ranked orna- mental gardens, which Lord Bacon thought, as he did the fubjeCt of Building itfelf, worthy of a place among his famous EJJays. Gardens (ufing the word in its wideft fenfe, of ornamental grounds) are feldom kept for the foie enjoyment of the owner. The vulgar woman in a filk gown who expeCts half-a-fovereign, and will not refufe half- a- crown, for driving you through a nobleman’s drawing- rooms, will lift up a corner of the dirty cover of the white filk fofa, juft to fhow you what fine things my lady has, and with what a magnificent tafte {he buys at the {hop in London. But the gardens are not done up in brown holland ; they may be feen— -thofe that are moft worth feeing— almoft any day ; and it may be truly faid, that the gardens of many grand houfes afford far more pleafure in the courfe of any given period to the public than to the owner, the public feeing them on every fine day, the owner often for only a few weeks or even days in the year. But of all the arts of ornamentation, the one which (to borrow a well-known phrafe from the utilitarian fchool) affords the greateft happinefs to the greateft number, is be- yond all queftion that which is always called the Queen of the Arts — Architecture ; provided of courfe, it is good architecture. I do not pretend to fay that that has been the reafon why in all ages and in all civilized nations fome kind of magnificence in building has been cultivated : but of the faCt there is no doubt, with the natural excep- tion of times of difturbance, or oppreflion, or the preva- lence of fome peculiar religious fanaticifm, fuch as once Greek and Egyptian Temples. 9 deftroyed many of the fineft churches in England, and in Scotland left fcarcely any uninjured by the Puritans, whofe four tyranny fo difgufted the nation with the very name of religion that it fwung into the oppofite extreme of licenti- oufnefs and infidelity under the reftoration of the good-for- nothing Stewart dynafty and their next two or three fuc- ceflors. Of the magnificence of the Greek temples you have all heard, even thofe of you who have no idea what thefe tem- ples were like. Ancient Rome, you know, like modern Rome, was full of grand public buildings, both for religious and for civil purpofes. The word Egypt will fuggeft to you the Pyramids, one of which would barely ftand in the largeft fquare in London ; and befides the Pyramids the Egyptians built temples more vafl: and maflive than any that the world has fince beheld, and decorated them with gigantic figures, which we may confider hideous and deformed, but which are at any rate impofing from their enormous fize — always a great element in architectural efFeCt. Thofe people of the time of Mofes could do fome things too, which we cannot with all our fcience and ma- chinery. An officer of the Britifh Mufeum told me that a London workman had fpent a whole day and broken twenty-four drills in trying to make a fingle hole in a flatue, which fome Egyptian mafon had carved and polifhed 4000 years ago. You heard of the difcovery of the great marble bulls and other temple decorations at Nineveh, where the prophet Jonah preached. India and China have had for time out of mind an architecture of their own, and decorate their temples and their gods (for you know they make one as well as the other) with a profufion of ornament, not 10 "The dark Ages. quite in European tafte certainly, but yet not in worfe tafte than is difplayed in many modern buildings in what we confider the moil civilized country in the world, viz. our own. Even in the ruined cities of Central America, whofe very ruins were unknown till lately, architect ural magnificence appears to have been cultivated, and chiefly, as elfewhere, in connexion with their religion. Of the continent of Europe it is of courfe unneceflary to fpeak ; and without entering on the vexed queftion of how dark c the dark ages’ were, one thing is clear, viz. that they were light enough for building in a way which we have been now for fifty years trying to imitate, and are ftill a long way off. But perhaps you will turn round upon me and fay it was not the perfect, but the imperfect civilization of thefe peo- ple of old times, that made them fpend their time and money in building temples, either to their falfe gods, or under a fuperftitious notion that it was the way to pleafe the true God. Well then, let us fee whether the love of coftly buildings difappears when they are difconne£ted from religion. Firft of all, as I told you juft now, many of the grandeft Roman buildings were for merely civil purpofes, and had nothing at all to do with religion. Again in the middle or dark ages, not only the churches, but all the other buildings of which anything remains, were of the fame character, more or lefs ornamented, as ufual, according to their fize and the means of the perfons who built or ufed them. But let us come ftill nearer home, and fee what people have done in England for the laft two centuries, when we certainly cannot be accufed of throwing away our money from fuperftitious motives ; and equally little can it be faid that there is only one ftyle of building praftifed by Houfes of Parliament. 1 1 anybody, and that a coftly one, fo that we muft build ex- pend vely and grandly if we are to build at all. At nearly the beginning of the period I have taken ftands St. Paul’s Cathedral, which coft above a million of money ; and at the end of it the Houfes of Parliament, which will foon have coft two millions. Thofe are two tolerably coftly fpecimens of public building, the religious one begun in the age of infidelity, the civil one at the very climax of the age of utilitarianifm, fhortly after the pafling of the Reform Bill. At leaft three quarters of the area of St. Paul’s is, and always muft have been, ufelefs ; and if ufefulnefs only was regarded, it is probable that two legiflative chambers and fome committee-rooms and offices could have been built for lefs than £2,000,000, or even the much fmaller amount of the original eftimate. The next time you go to London look at St. Pancras Church, the firft you come to as you go weftward from the King’s Crofs Station. Y ou would be rather difgufted if we built you fuch a thing as that here ; and yet that church was built at a coft of about £100,000, by men with their eyes open, and paid for out of a parifti rate fpread over I don’t know how many years, within the prefent generation. Look again at the great Marylebone Church, a mile further on in the fame road. You will probably not admire that much more, and it coft not much lefs than the other. The fame may be faid, only in a fomewhat lefs degree as to coftlinefs, if not as to beauty, of the four other redtory churches of the fame parifti, all built within the prefent century, in the place of, or rather in addition to, the little barn which figures as the parifti church of Marylebone in one of Hogarth’s pidtures, and is now called Marylebone Chapel. 12 London Clubs. I only mention thefe as quite modern fpecimens of hun- dreds of churches built in the fame ftyle and at a coft far exceeding what we are fpending here, and without the ex- cufe of their being reftorations or rebuildings of churches which had been reckoned before among the great and beau- tiful remains of other ages. I mention them alfo as a few among many proofs that the moment a building is regarded as a public building, it feems to have been always, even in the moft economical times and places, taken for granted that it ought to be made a handfome building, and confe- quently a coftly one. A few hundreds of gentlemen in London, or any other large town, agree to provide them- felves with a houfe of their own, inftead of going to the tavern, to eat a two-ftiilling dinner in, and read the news- papers. Moft of them are young, and very few of them are rich, enjoying at home nothing more fplendid than the dingy finery of lodgings over a (hop, or the more refpectable dinginefs without finery, of chambers, or a lmall houfe in a fecond-rate ftreet. But the moment they are agglomerated, they muft have a new club-houfe, for which the only order given to the architect appears to be that it muft be fome- thing grander, and more decorated, and more fplendidly furnifhed than the one laft built for fome other club. Juft in the fame way, Birmingham, and Liverpool, and Bradford, and Leeds, and Prefton, and, I dare fay, other places in their turn, becaufe they want fome new law courts or room for public meetings, confider how they can fwell out their courts and their concert-room into the grandeft poftible town-hall, and levy a borough rate to build it, without the fmalleft fcruple about c confcientious objections,’ or a mo- ment’s confideration that they might have all they want, as Scottijh and American Architecture. 13 far as the ufefulnefs of the building goes, for lefs than a quarter of the money. Some brafs doors in the great hall lately opened at Liverpool are declared to have coft no lefs than £6000. Even if charity is the obje£t of the building, it is all the fame. In Edinburgh, the city of ambitious failures, where they build fham ruins of Grecian temples, and where it may be faid that nature and money have done as much for the place, and tafte as little, as poflible, the mod ambitious of their numerous public buildings is a hofpital, founded only a few years ago. Many of the hofpitals in London and other large towns have great architedtural pretenfions. The Royal Infirmary at Manchefter is perhaps the moll ftriking building in that city of political economifts, and even has ornamental gardens in front of it. The words political economy bring into one’s head the London Uni- verfity and their college in Gower-ftreet, with its dome, and portico, and flight of fteps — like the Capitol at Wafh- ington, in the United States : fo you fee that neither the diffufers of penny magazines and univerfal knowledge, nor the poffeffors of univerfal fuffrage and a quadrennial king, are elevated above, or funk below, that univerfal paflion for building magnificently, which I faid was inherent in civilifed men of all ages and in all countries. I mull have faid enough to fatisfy you, if you doubted it before, that it is ; and that it is no more worth while to argue with a man who challenges you to give reafons why any particular edifice Ihould not be built as plainly as poflible, inftead of as handfomely as you can afford, than to attempt to con- vince a man who does not like mufic that he ought to like it, or to refute the propofition that Hatfield Level is quite 1 4 Sinfulnejs of Church Decoration. as pleafant a country as Wharfedale or the Lakes, or that the prevailing preference for handfome women over ugly ones is irrational and abfurd. But fome people will grant all this, and a good deal more, rather than give up their particular prejudice with regard to buildings for religious purpofes. If a nobleman almoft ruins himfelf in building and furnifhing a houfe, it is rather foolifh to be fure ; and fo are the velvet fofas and gilded ceilings and marble pillars of club-houfes for officers with half or full pay, and lawyers with none ; and a great deal of all this fine building we have been talking of is certainly not undertaken from the proper motive of giving pleafure to thofe who are to look at it, but from mere vanity and oftentation. But then, fay the advocates of ugly churches, all this does no harm, except to the foolifh people themfelves who wafte their money in this way ; whereas buildings for religious purpofes ought to have nothing to diflradl the eye and the mind from the fervice to be performed there. Well, I have no difpofition to dis- pute that. But that, you know, will not help you to knock off at any rate the external decoration. Your devotions, when you get into church, can be no more difturbed by having looked at the outfide of a handfome church as you went there, than by looking at a handfome town-hall, or manfion-houfe, or hofpital, a little further up the ftreet ; and, therefore, unlefs you mean to maintain that the con- templation of handfome buildings of any kind gives rife to finful emotions, the church tower muff be at leaf! as in- nocent, and it certainly is to moft people a far more pleas- ing fpedlacle than the fculptured pediment of the Exchange and the Grecian pillars that fupport it. Popery of Church Reftoration. 1 5 But how do you propofe to make out that devotion is more difficult in a handfome church than an ugly one ? Have you got anybody to vouch for the fa£t that congre- gations are obferved to be more attentive to their prayers and to the fermon in chapels with fquare windows, and painted deal pews, and plaftered pillars, than in churches with ftone pillars, and Gothic windows, and painted glafs, and oak feats without doors. It is of no ufe arguing about fuch a queftion. It is either a fa or not. If it is a fadt, there has been time enough for it to have been obferved and publifhed as a notorious and undeniable thing ; and afluredly it would have been by the writers of fermons en- titled c The Reftoration of Churches, the Reftoration of c Popery/ if there had been any chance of its being recog- nifed as true. Mind, I am not faying a word in favour of the upholftery, and flower-pots, and day-light candles, and altar crofles, and lock-up chancels of the c pofture and c impofture’ churches;* but I am not one of thofe who * Some of my friends who belong to this fchool, on reading this fentence in the former edition, complained that I had gone out of my way to have a fling at them. I fee no reafon why they fliould com- plain. They cannot be afraid that my taking a fling at their flower- pots and candlefticks will knock them over ; and they ought to be the more glad to accept my opinion, as far as it goes, in favour of Church decoration, as that of a perfon who they know has no fym- pathy with their peculiar religious views. For the fame reafon, I cite the opinion of the late Bilhop Stanley, and the growing difpofi- tion of the Proteftant diflenters to build handfome meeting-houfes in the Gothic ftyle, inftead of the oftentatioufly ugly ones in the Theatre Royal ftyle, which they ufed to build ; becaufe thefe things have the value of independent teftimony ; while for this purpofe the opinion of the Bilhop of Exeter and the pra£Hce of the Ecclefiological Society, would have no weight at all. Where two parties of oppofite views 1 6 Hooker's Opinion. never feel fafe from one kind of folly until they have taken refuge in the oppofite one. If occafional extrava- gance and bad tafte in church decoration is to condemn all decoration of churches, it is evident that all the ornament- ation of everything in the world muft be given up, lince there is none which is not fometimes applied with as great extravagance, and as bad tafte, and as little regard to de- corum as any that is to be found in the churches of any religion whatever. In fhort, fo long as men continue to be created with a preference for beauty over uglinefs, whether in the works of the Creator or of themfelves, it will not be eafy to convince any reafonable being that the only buildings which ought to be confecrated to uglinefs are thofe which are confecrated to the worfhip of God. And here I do not know why I fhould not quote a few words of that wife and pious man to whom the epithet ‘judicious’ has been long by common confent affixed, although they have been often quoted before: — c Albeit c God refpedleth not fo much in what place, as with what c affedlion he is ferved .... manifeft notwithftanding it c is, that the very majefty and holinefs of the place where c God is worfhipped hath, in regard of us , great virtue, c force, and efficacy ; for that it ferveth as a fenfible help ‘ to ftir up devotion ; and in that refpe£I, no doubt, better- c eth even our holieft and beft adtions in this kind. As c therefore, we everywhere exhort all men to worfhip God, ‘ even fo for the performance of this fervice by the people gradually come to adopt the fame conclufions on certain points, there is a very ftrong prefumption that they are the conclufions of common fenfe. Gothic Meeting-houfes. 17 c of God affembled, we think no place fo good as the 4 church, neither any exhortation fo lit as that of David — c O worfhip the Lord in the beauty of holinefs.’ And again he fays (a little before) : — c Touching God himfelf, 4 hath he anywhere revealed that it is his delight to dwell c beggarly, and that he taketh no pleafure to be worfhipped c faving only in poor cottages ? Even then was the Lord 4 as acceptably honoured of his people as ever, when the 4 ffatelieff places and things in the whole world were fought 4 out to adorn his temple.’ — Hooker s Eccles. Pol. book v. chap. 1 5. Indeed this ridiculous and ignorant prejudice againfl the ufe of ornament in buildings for religious purpofes alone is a relic of Puritanifm now fall difappearing even among diffenters, with whom it naturally lingered longed; ; as any- body may fee by looking at what they ufed to call by the undecorated name of 4 meeting-houfes,’ but now defignate as chapels, and make as handfome as they can afford, and as their architect knows how to do for the money. In- flances of this kind may be feen in every large town, but I will only mention two : the Unitarians have built a Gothic meeting-houfe at Leeds, which, if it had a tower, certainly need fear comparifon with no church there. I cannot fay as much for the more pretentious Prefbyterian chapel juft built in the fame town, though it is equally good as an illuflration. The other inftance is flill more remarkable, of three chapels of different denominations ftanding fide by fide in Bloomfbury Street, near the Britifh Mufeum. The plainefl — indeed the word 4 plain’ can only be applied to it by the fame courtefy which applies it inflead of another epithet to female beauty of a certain c 1 8 Italian Churches. order — is a Church of England Chapel ; the fecond belongs to the French Proteftant Epifcopalians ; and between them ftands a Baptift meeting-houfe, with two fpires and a large wheel window between, not to be fure in the very beft ftyle, but of far greater architectural pretenftons than either of the other two. But there are perfons who feem to have no objection to building ornamental churches, provided only the ornament- ation is anything elfe but Gothic. The columns, entab- latures, and pediments, originally imported from thofe very temples of Jupiter, Venus and Bacchus, where not a few of the Popifh fuperftitions and practices had their origin, have become aflociated with the idea of Proteftantifm, in the minds of thefe people, by fome extraordinary procefs of aflimilation which has never been difclofed to the vulgar ; while Gothic arches and high-pitched roofs and traceried or lancet windows, are pronounced eflentially Popifh and antichriftian. It is difficult to conceive an objection founded on more profound ignorance of every part of the fubject. Thefe perfons muft firft be ignorant that what they mean and un- derftand by the term Gothic Architecture, never flourifhed at all in the city which is the head quarters of Popery, nor indeed fouth of the Alps anywhere. They muft alfo be ignorant — aftonifhing as fuch ignorance is — that the metro- politan Church of the Roman Catholic world, is not even in the Italian Gothic ftyle, which is very different from our Northern Gothic, but in the fame ftyle as our fingle Pro- teftant-built Cathedral of St. Paul. They cannot be aware either of that which they might learn from any of the commoneft books on the fubjedl, that, although different Modern Popi/h Gothic . 19 authorities fix the climax of Gothic Architecture at differ- ent epochs, none of them have the leaft hefitation in recogni- fing the fymptoms of its decay long before the times when Luther defied the Pope, and Henry VIII. plundered and deflroyed the monafteries. Neither was its fall confined to the countries where Luther preached and Henry plun- dered, but was juft as rapid and decifive where the ftill dominant Papifts were burning Proteftant Chriftians, as where fanatical Proteftants were burning Popifh Churches. Moreover, as Gothic Architecture did not fall with Popery, neither was it revived by Papifts when it did begin to revive. As long as Proteftants built churches in the Grecian or Italian ftyle, fo did the Papifts. If Gothic building is more connected with Popery than with any other form of Chriftianity, how does it happen that the Papifts were neither the firft to revive it, nor have been more fuccefsful than Proteftants in cultivating it fince they readopted it ? For now that they have adopted it, I do not think anybody will deny that their attempts at it have been hitherto quite as bad and feeble and un-Gothic as ours. Where is the modern Popifh Church even of their moft magnificent attempts, which you are ever told to go and look at as a fpecimen of what can be done in Gothic Architecture now ? The beft that I know of modern churches, is neither a Roman Catholic nor a Church of England Church, but the Irvingite Church in Gordon Square, though it yet wants the tower and fpire, and the roof is too low in pitch and only flated. Or if you prefer the opinion of a higher authority than mine, and agree with Mr. Rufkin that the only modern church which deferves commendation, is that in Margaret Street, near Cavendifh 20 Church in Margaret Street, Square, ftill that is not a Popifh one either. With regard to that Church however, I cannot help thinking, that his tranfparent prejudices for the furface decoration of the Italian Gothic, which has been attempted there, have blinded him to fome very glaring faults in that fantaftic building, and even to offences againft maxims of his own \ fuch as that in the Seven Lamps ; 4 as the pinnacles are not c enough without the fpire, fo the fpire is not enough with- 4 out the pinnacles’ at the junction of the tower with the fpire : for in that Church there are none. I have been afked why I apply that particular epithet 4 fantaftic’ to this Church. Becaufe it is the proper one to defcribe ftriking novelties which are not fuccefsful ; and ac- cording to my opinion and that of everybody whom I have heard fpeak of it, except a few worfhippers of Mr. Rufkin and friends of the architect, that is not fuccefsful. I do not call it fantaftic becaufe I have any prejudice whatever againft Gothic brickwork, or againft decorating it by means of ftones, or bricks of a different colour. On the contrary, I wifh that ftyle was more cultivated ; but fi imply becaufe I think that in the outfide of this Church and its appurte- nant buildings the architect has failed egregioufly. As for the parts which only profefs to be Geometrical Gothic, they have juft the common faults of nearly every modern church, and I do not mean to apply the epithet fantaftic to them certainly. But as the infide of the Church is not done yet, I will take the liberty of adding, that I hope the archi- tect will not be allowed to indulge that peculiar tafte for woodwork in the pafteboard ftyle which he has difplayed in Merton College Chapel, and St. Auguftine’s at Canterbury. The Gothic builders no doubt ufed their timber, in one fenfe, Is Church Reftcration TraElarian ? 21 waflefully, by not difpofing it in the way to get the molt ftrength out of a given quantity of materials. But nothing can bemoreabfurd with a view to efFeCt,or more mifchievous where ftrength is required, than to copy their carpentry, fo far as the arrangement goes, while you deviate from it by ufing materials of not half the thicknefs which they ufed. If you cannot afford oak of the proper thicknefs to execute orna- mental work in the old ftyle, it is far better to do it in fome cheaper wood, than to make feat ends and other work of oak boards not half the thicknefs of the old ones. You cannot fuppofe that the old builders did not know as well as you do, that the c redundance’ which they frequently dis- played in materials, as well as in work, was redundance, and was not necelfary for the mere ftrength of the fabric, though it was elfential to the ornamental efFeCt. But I mull not purfue that topic any further now. Sometimes the ultra- Proteflant objection to Gothic Ar- chitecture is attempted to be fupported on the merely per- sonal ground, that fome of its moll ardent cultivators have diftinguifhed themfelves by cultivating alfo as much of Popifh obfervances as they dare, and fome have at laft gone to their own place, where they can enjoy them all. Twenty years ago this objection would have founded more formida- ble than it does now j becaufe now it has the common mis- fortune of bad arguments, proving a great deal too much. If it is good for anything, we mult expeCt foon to fee thofe Unitarian and Prefbyterian meeting-houfes in Leeds and the Baptift one in Bloomfbury, of which I fpoke, and I don’t know how many other Gothic edifices befides, be- longing to various denominations of Proteftant diflenters all over the kingdom, handed over, with their congregations, to 22 Bi/hop Stanley on Church Decoration. the dominion of the Pope. Twenty years ago it would perhaps have been difficult to name any perfon of note who had diftinguiftied himfelf as an opponent of Tradtarian opin- ions, and who had alfo taken any adtive part as a reftorer of churches. Now there is no difficulty at all about it ; and everybody mu ft know fuch inftances within his own acquaintance. I will mention no living inftance among church reftorers, but I will mention a very remarkable one of a perfon no longer living. I fuppofe no biftiop, living or dead, has been more notorioully oppofed to thofe views than the late Biftiop Stanley, of Norwich ; and yet I fee in his life, written by his fon, it is fpecially noticed that c he was not deterred by his great diflike of High-Church c views from advocating earneftly the more frequent employ- c ment of art for church decoration, and (obferve this too) c increafed accommodation for the poor by the fubftitution c of open fittings for clofed pews.’ Although the word c Gothic ’ is not mentioned here, it is obvious that the pas- fage has reference to that ftyle of art, and that moft bene- ficial fyftem of open feats, which the High-Church party undoubtedly deferve the credit of having been the firft to introduce. I may add that Mr. Rulkin, whofe advocacy of c the more frequent employment of Gothic art in church c decoration’ probably goes beyond that of any other writer of our time, has made it evident by a pamphlet of a femi- theological and ultra-dogmatical charadter, with the fantas- tic title of c Notes on the Conftrudtion of Sheepfolds,’ that he is much more inclined to the Low-Church party than to the oppofite one. I have already fo often mentioned Mr. Rufkin’s name, as no one who writes on architedture now can well avoid Mr. Rujkin and his Writings . 23 doing, that I think it better to tell you at once my opinion of his writings. Hitherto the reading world has been too much divided, on the one hand into enthuftaftic admirers of his wonderful genius, his correcft tafte, and his infallible inftincft on all matters of art, no lefs than the fingular eloquence with which he delivers his opinions, or decrees ; and on the other, the deriders and denouncers of his artiftic hereftes, perverted tafte, and violent prejudices, his in- flated ftyle, and above all his unexampled arrogance and conceit ; and an article on Architecture in the Quarterly Review of 1854, written in their very worft ftyle, and quite as dogmatical as Mr. Rufkin himfelf, declares that his late vagaries have rendered him worth no further notice. And by way of fpecimen of thefe vagaries, this fagacious authority afks how anything can be worth liftening to from a man who is fo inconfiftent as to advocate the Gothic practice of carving foliage on the capital of a pillar, while he denounces the Renaiflance ornament of a marble wreath carved on a flat wall c like a bundle of dead flowers hung c upon a peg/ It is not furpriflng that a critic who felects for admiration the two churches of St. George of Blooms- bury and St. George of Hanover Square, ftiould be unable to fee the difference between the lively naturalifm of the Gothic, and the flat and dead artificialifm of the claflical ornament in thefe two cafes. If Mr. Rufkin had no worfe inconflftency than this to anfwer for, his defence would be very eafy, and the many valuable judgments which his works contain, would have a better chance of being received. But I confefs I fhould be forry to have to undertake his defence againft that charge of inconflftency, and ftill more fo to excufe the dogmatical arrogance of his ftyle, which is 24 Mr. Rujkin's Nicknames. hardly to be matched anywhere, except in a c religious c newfpaper,’ or to deny that his reafons are often fo incon- el ufive and irrelevant as to be almoft childifh, and even his found opinions frequently pufhed into extravagance and mixed with abfurd prejudices. He feems to have a kind of fpite againft the Englifh Cathedrals, becaufe he once caught cold while he was fketching in Salifbury (if I remem- ber right), and hardly ever mentions them except with a kind of foreign difdain, or condefcending approval, even when he finds nothing to condemn. Another great fault of his is the habit of affedting to decide queftions of tafte by giving nicknames to things he does not like ; fuch as calling King’s College Chapel like a four-legged table upfide down, which it is not, and never could have appeared to him or anybody elfe. It has faults certainly, and great ones ; but this carelefs and contemptuous way of difpofing of a building, which has always been ad- mired as at any rate the fined: of its kind, convinces no- body, except thofe who are incapable of forming an opinion for themfelves, and difgufts everybody who (whether rightly l or wrongly) has a ftrong opinion the other way. In the fame way, and worfe, as I fhall fpecially notice hereafter, he condemns a large clafs of Englifh towers, which would include that of Doncafter, by calling them c confedtioner’s 1 Gothic.’ And it is the more neceflary to notice this fault in his writings, becaufe there are circumftances in which that mode of deriding monflrofities is perfedtly fair and right. Thus it is perfedlly right to call fuch ornaments as the ar- chitedf of the Leeds Town Hall exhibits upon its lower corners, foup-tureens ; and thofe on the corners of his pro- pofed tower, teetotums ; becaufe they refemble nothing elfe Leeds Town Hall . 2 5 on the face of the earth ; and as thofe ufeful and amufing articles are not the kind of things that ftrike one as fit to be exalted into gigantic architectural decorations, it is fufficient condemnation of fuch ornaments to give them their proper nicknames. But to call a window a lancet window, or a cer- tain kind of moulding a cable moulding, would not be to call it by a nickname, but by its true name, of which it has no need to be alhamed. Although a building does not require foup-tureens, or tea-urns, or teetotums, either for ufe or ornament, it does require windows ; and the windows mull have fome form ; and a long light, ending in a pointed arch, is a very beautiful form, and it cannot be the lefs beautiful becaufe it accidentally refembles a lancet or anything elfe. But it would be a very different thing if you were to ftick up great folid ftone lancets on the top of a building and call them ornaments, and alk the world to admire them. Again, the cable-moulding is intended to imitate a cable : a petri- fied cable laid in the hollow of an arch, though not fuch a high order of ornament as the imitation of natural objects, would not be an ugly thing ; and indeed without the aid of petrifaction, I dare fay you have often feen pieces of old cable put round the raifed beds in a flower-garden as a kind of ruftic ornament, and with not a bad effect. In reading Mr. Rufkin’s bopks therefore, you mu ft not be frightened merely becaufe you fee fomething that is generally admired called by fome ridiculous nickname ; but confider whether it deferves it. If it does not, the ridicule only falls on the perfon who avails himfelf of fuch a very fmall and cheap ftyle of criticifm. Another fault in them you will very foon difcover without being told of it, viz. that they are much too long and fpun out with perpetual 26 Mr. Rufkin's Style . difiertations, which may be relevant to fomething which Mr. Rulkin is thinking about when he writes them, but cer- tainly are not to the fubjeCt before the reader. Notwith- ftanding thefe rather ferious blemiflies however, he has done more than any other writer — indeed no other that I know of has done anything worth notice — to call the attention of mankind to what may be called the moral charaCteriftics of Gothic Architecture as diftinguifhed from Claflical or Renaiflance. I ftiould. think few perfons, and quite as few architects as others, can read his books without learning a great deal from them which it is worth while to know, and without finding reafons which they never thought of, for either giving up or holding more diftinCtly, many opinions which have been floating in their minds in a fomewhat hazy way before ; for it is by no means to be inferred that his reafons are always bad or abfurd becaufe they are fome- times. I need hardly add that the opinions of fuch a per- fon, however valuable in general, muft be received with caution, and not fwallowed whole, efpecially on queftions on which it is evident that he has fomewhat violent prejudices, fuch as his preference for the Southern over the Northern Gothic, to which he never does juftice when they come in competition. But to proceed with what we were talking of when I began this epifode about Mr. Rufkin. I have lately heard the objection to Gothic churches put in another form, by thofe who could not help feeing that the old objections would do no longer. They fay that the breaking up of the area by pillars and aifles and tranfepts, which is thought eflential in a large Gothic church, is unfuitable to Proteftant worfhip. This too is a molt unlucky objection, for more Value of Aifles and Pillars in Churches . 27 reafons than one. In the firft place, if the hiding of the minifter from the view of fome of the congregation by in- tervening pillars is more unfuited to one kind of worftiip than another, I fliould think that the fervice to which it is leaft fuited is that where the people go to fee what is done by the prieft, performing ceremonies, and celebrating maffes in Latin, and not that fervice where they go partly to hear a fermon, and partly to join in prayers read from a book which they have in their hands, and moftly know by heart, and the whole of which is performed in c a tongue underftanded c by the people/ That is one anfwer to the obje&ion, and as it is not mine, I will add that I think it is a very good one. Another is, that neither are aides and pillars and tranfepts effential to Gothic Architecture, nor is the ab- fence of them in the leaft implied by the term Italian or Grecian Architecture. There is not a Gothic church in the world with the aides and tranfepts fo completely cut off from the part where the fervice is performed by the pillars as our aforefaid Proteftant Cathedral of St. Paul ; and I do not remember any large church in that ftyle (except a few very modern ones — and the fame exception might be made in Gothic) where there are not aides and pillars dividing them from the nave, juft as in a Gothic church. But there is yet a third, and perhaps a better anfwer ftill, viz. that the whole of this objeCIion turns out to be founded on a complete miftake as to a matter of fcience ; not indeed an unnatural one, but yet one which is now fully afcertained to be a miftake. For it is at laft difcovered that, fo far from the pillars and aides and broken roofs of Gothic churches, built after the fafhion of the old ones, being worfe for hearing in, they are generally better, than the wide fpread 2 8 Gothic Principles. buildings, all under one fpan like a railway ftation, which it was the falhion to eredft in large towns a few years ago. This facft is noticed in two recent Reports of the Church- building Society, and I had obferved the fame thing myfelf in feveral inftances, even in fmall churches, though without knowing that it was general, before I read it there. Cer- tainly fome of the worft places for hearing in that I know are buildings all under one roof, and of far lefs capacity than many churches, both old and new, of the nave and aifle conftrudtion in which a large congregation can hear per- fectly well. So that in this, as in many other things, the old Gothic builders knew what they were about a great deal better than we do, who a few years ago defpifed and are now juft beginning to learn their principles. I fay c to learn their principles becaufe I deny the truth of that which is generally the laft refort of the objedtors to the revival of Gothic Architecture, that the moft we aim at is a fuccefsful copy or imitation of the work of five cen- turies ago, and that we can never become really Gothic builders, defigning our buildings on purely Gothic princi- ples, becaufe we do not know what they were. It is in- deed too apparent that this is the moft that the great ma- jority of gentlemen who undertake orders for Gothic build- ings do aim at. But it is not ufual to judge of the capacity or the dignity of any other art or myftery by the doings of the nine ftupid men who follow it juft as they would have followed knife-grinding if they had been bred to it, but of the tenth — or it may be the hundredth man of found mind and real genius, and of the true Gothic fpirit, who does nothing merely becaufe fomebody elfe has done it before, but is always thinking how he can do better than before — who can fee faults in his own works while other people are Rickman's Book. 29 admiring them, and refle£ts that in a few years he will be eftimated not by the quantity of work he managed to get paid for in his time, but by the advances which he helped his art to make. Thus it is that Thomas Rickman the Quaker, mu ft be regarded as one of the refounders of Gothic Architecture, although he never himfelf built anything worthy of that defignation ; becaufe he made the firft fuccefsful attempt to reduce the elementary faCts of that kind of architecture to fomething like a fyftem. Rickman indeed was far from being the Newton who was to difcover the laws of Gothic building ; but long before laws or principles can be dis- covered, faCts have to be afcertained and arranged. Co- , pernicus and Galileo had to convince the world that the planets move round the fun, and Kepler to afcertain that their motion is performed in elliptical orbits and in periods whereof the fquares vary as the cubes of their diftances, and that they fweep over equal areas in equal times, before Newton found out the law which produces all thefe effe