C. (i.) Norman tympana. (ii.) Double doors in Early English. (a) These explained in two ways, [1] CHRIST's entrance into the world. [2] Our entrance into the kingdom of heaven, (b) Difference between mouldings of Chancel, arches, and doors. (c) Porches. (d) Chancel Arch and Rood screen. (e) Monuments. (a) Different of ancient and modern symbolism in these. [1] Sceptical character of the present age. [2] Paganism of modern design. [3] Reality of ancient design. (b) Historical details of Monuments. (f) Gurgoyles and Poppyheads. (g) Flowers used in architecture. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 1. Inequality of type and antitype. 2. Difference of Symbolism in the same arrangement. 3. Mechanical origin. D. HISTORY OF SYMBOLISM. 1. Norman; as symbolizing facts. 2. Early English; as symbolizing doctrines. 3. Decorated; as symbolizing the connexion of doctrines. 6. Post Reformation Symbolism. D. CONCLUSION. Contrast between a modern and ancient Church. Laus Beo. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. THE study of Church Architecture has within the last few years become so general, and a love for it so widely diffused, that whereas, in a former generation it was a task to excite either, in the present it is rather an object to direct both. An age of church-building, such as this, ought to produce good architects, not only from the great encouragement given to their professional efforts, but from the increasing appreciation of the principles and powers of their art. And yet it cannot be denied, however we may account for the fact, that (at least among those for whom we write, the members of our own communion,) no architect has as yet arisen, who appears destined to be the reviver of Christian art. It is not that the rules of the science have not been studied, that the examples bequeathed to us have not been imitated, that the details are not understood. We have (though they are but few) modern buildings of the most perfect proportions, of the most faultless details, and reared with lavish expence. It is that there is an undefined-perhaps almost undefinable— difference between a true "old church," and the most perfect of modern temples. In the former, at least till late in the Perpendicular era, we feel that, however strange the proportions, or extraordinary the details, the effect is church-like. In the latter, we may not be able to blame; but from a certain feeling of unsatisfactoriness, we cannot praise. The solution of the problem,-What is it that causes. this difference? has been often attempted, sometimes with partial, but never with complete, success. That most commonly given is the following:-The effect of association in old buildings,-the mellowing power of time,the evident antiquity of surrounding objects,-the natural beauties of foliage, moss, and ivy, that require centuries to reach perfection ;-as on the other hand, the bareness, the newness, nay even the sharpness and vigour of new work; these, it is said, are sufficient to stamp a different character on each. There is doubtless something in this; but that it is not the whole cause is evident from the fact, that give a modern church all the above mentioned advantages on paper, and an experienced eye will soon detect it to be modern. Those writers who, as Grose, Milner, and Carter, lived before the details of Christian art were understood, seem to have placed its perfection in a thorough knowledge of these experience has proved them wrong. Others, as Mr. Petit,* have made a kind of ideal picturesque; and, having exalted the phantasm into an idol, have fallen down and worshipped it. Others, again, have sought for an explanation of the difficulty in mathematical contrivance and mechanical ingenuity; and the result has been little more than the discovery of curious eave-drains, and wonderful cast-iron roof-work. Lastly, Mr. Pugin (cum talis sis, utinam noster esses!) has placed the thing required in Reality. That is, to quote his own words, in making these the two great rules of design :-"1. That there should "be no features about a building which are not necessary "for convenience, construction, or propriety: 2. That all "ornament should consist of enrichment of the essential * See the Review of his work in the Ecclesiologist, vol. i. pp. 91–105. "construction of a building."* And we may add, as a corollary, still quoting the same writer: "The smallest “detail should have a meaning or serve a purpose: the "construction itself should vary with the material em"ployed and the designs should be adapted to the "material in which they are to be executed." Still, most true and most important as are these remarks, we must insist on one more axiom, otherwise Christian art will but mock us, and not shew us wherein its great strength lieth. A Catholick architect must be a Catholick in heart. Simple knowledge will no more enable a man to build up GOD's material, than His spiritual, temples. In ancient times, the finest buildings were designed by the holiest Bishops. Wykeham and Poore will occur to every Churchman. And we have every reason to believe, from God's Word, from Catholick consent, and even from philosophical principles, that such must always be the case. Holy Scripture, in mentioning the selection of Bezaleel and Aholiab, as architects of the Tabernacle, expressly asserts them to have been filled "with the SPIRIT OF GOD "in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and "in all manner of workmanship, to devise cunning works, "to work in gold and in silver and in brass, and in cutting "of stones to set them, and in carving of timber, to work “in all manner of workmanship." And this indeed is only a part of the blessing of the pure in heart: they see GOD, the Fountain of Beauty, even in this life; as they shall see Him, the Fountain of Holiness, in the next. From Catholick consent we may learn the same truth. Why else was Ecclesiastical Architecture made a part of * Pugin's True Principles, p. 1. |