Page:The Building News and Engineering Journal, Volume 22, 1872.djvu/279

 Marcu 29, 1872. THE BUILDING NEWS. 261 ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION. T the usual fortnightly meeting on Friday even- ing last, Mr. Rowland Plumbe, President, in the chair, Messrs. W. B. Duncan and A. EB. North- cote were elected members. A cordial yote of thanks was passed to Messrs. Banks and Barry, the archi- tects of the new buildings at Burlington House, for their kindness in allowing the members of the As- sociation to visit the works on a recent occasion ; the vote also included the name of Mr. Ruddle, the clerk of the works, who conducted the members over the works. A letter was read from Mr. T. Roger Smith (who had been appointed to represent the As- sociation on the Committee of Selection for Archi- tectural Designs in the approaching International Exhibition of 1872), stating that very few designs had been seat in for exhibition by the Members of the Association. Mr. G. H. Biron, Vice-President, then read a paper on CHRISTIAN ICONOGRAPHY, Last session the author read a paper before the Association on ‘‘Symbolism as applied to Architec- ture, and its Influence on Plan and Arrangement.” His subject on the present occasion was the corollary of the former subject, and he was the more anxious to treat of it, because he thought that at no other period of the revival of Christian art in this country could there have been a better time than now to attempt to make some slight stand against that liberty in art which, however glorious it might be in theory (of entire freedom in its national, civil, or domestic capacity) must, when it became the handmaid of religion, be trammelled by certain regu- lations, conditions, and traditions to fit it as the ex- ponent of that which was fixed, changeless, and divine. Without faith, art, if it enjoyed an arti- ficial existence, was a base mockery of its better self; and though the revival of Christian architec- ture was a glorious fact, and principles timidly put forth thirty years ago were now accepted and even developed to their fullest extent, much still re- mained to be done in the sister arts of painting and sculpture, It was of the greatest importance that all those who were or who might be engaged in the practice of ecclesiastical architecture should study iconography in all its branches; they would be better church architects for the study, and would never regret the time spent onit. Mr. Birch next briefly traced the history of iconographical art from the first attempts in the third and fourth centuries of the Christian era, and from even earlier examples, as seen in the Catacombs, remarking that in M. Didron’s incomparable work on Christian icono- graphy, all the changes and vicissitudes of the art were carefully noted from their commencement, and traced to their final development or total extinction. The two great points on which Mr. Birch wished to insist were :—Firstly, the employment of art to teach as well as to decorate or adorn; and, secondly, the application of such decoration to the various parts of a church with a special and peculiar significance to such parts and their uses. He wanted also to draw attention to the constant abuse of both these fundamental principles in modern ecclesiastical art, and to demonstrate a few of the errors which have been perpetrated in our times in some of our finest ecclesiastical buildings, which were being absolutely ruined by the fearful amount of ignorance and mis- chievous incapacity betrayed by those to whom was entrusted the care of them, and with whom he was obliged to couple their professional advisers in such acts. It was good to restore a church reverently, and care for every stone, and treat it (as it really was) as a documentary evidence of the greatest im- portance—a page of history in itself; to rebuild the shattered buttress and the crumbling wall; to replace cross and pinnacle, and repair what devouring time or sacrilegicus hands have defaced: no time, no trouble, should be begrudged by architects in rendering themselves able to undertake such a work of restoration properly. But how often did it happen that he to whom the work of restoring or raising the substantial fabric of walls, arches, and columns had been entrusted had not cared, or had felt himself perhaps incompetent to deal with the question of in- ternal decoration—of imagery, glass, or wall decora- tion—and had either shirked the question entirely, or had contented himself with just approving some scheme submitted to him, emanating from some eminent ‘ art-firm”—a scheme which perhaps had neither beginning nor end, but was chaotic and con- fused, as well as being (which was more often the case) entirely incorrect. There were some honour- able instances of “art-firms” in which individual members had made this subject their peculiar study ; but from their position they were often unable to carry out a proper scheme. Two very important obstacles stood in the way; pleasing their customers first—for there was no subject more governed by individual caprice than this—and, secondly, the inadequate sum placed at their disposal. A reredos was erected, a stained glass window inserted, or some mural decora- tion attempted, with which the architect expressed himself ‘‘much pleased,” because they were all, if moderately successful, important helps to make his building attractive in the eyes of the general public. As time went on, a new incumbent or some member of the congregation was desirous of doing something more in the shape of decoration, say a new window. No one’s glass was better than Mr. B.’s, and to Mr. B. they went. The new window was fin- ished; Mr. B. had dealt with it as a window only; perhaps he had never been to the church beforehand, and was utterly regardless of his brother artist’s work, except so far as endeavouring to cut him out and throw his window completely into the shade—a very right and proper spirit ‘‘in trade.” Mr. B. in his turn was superseded by Mr. C., and again was the same thing repeated, and so on through the alphabet, until the workers in stained glass were exhausted, and the result was chaos—a chaos of styles, subjects, and tones; parables, scenes from the life of Christ, miracles, saints, angels, kings, Christian virtues and graces, legends, and plain grisaille, all mixed up together here, there, and everywhere in inextricable confusion, the same sub- jects being often many times repeated in the same church. Horrible as this was in new churches, in old churches it was little less than profanation. In very many old churches there remained fragments of Stained glass, half-obliterated frescoes, or mutilated Sculpture, indicating subjects. formerly — repre- Sented on the walls and windows—all of which fragments, with a knowledge of iconography and reference to documentary evidence existing in old wills, charters, deeds of gift, churchwardens’ ac- counts, &c., might once more easily be connected and incorporated into a scheme for decoration which, instead of flouting those precious relics of the past, would make them intelligible, and convey the lessons they were originally intended to teach. Mr. Birch next proceeded to enforce his thesis that ‘‘ religious art—i.e., art employed in the service of religion— should teach as well as decorate.” The instruction and edification of the faithful were the primary objects the Early Church had in view in thus adopt- ing the system of employing the fine arts in the decoration of churches, It was to this principle that we owed the glorious series of windows at Chartres, Bourges, and Troyes, and our own Fairford, where a definite scheme was thoroughly followed. We were also indebted to it for the thousands of statues and carved subjects decorating the exteriors of Chartres, Rheims, Amiens, Paris, Wells. Croyland, &c. While contending for the adoption of iconographical schemes of decoration and instruction in modern churches, he did not wish it to be inferred that an archaic style of drawing should be adopted in modern work. He was not contending for the style, but for the subjects. As art had advanced in the power of delineating the human figure, it would be an absurdity to recur to the more forcible but anatomi- cally incorrect figures of an earlier age. What he maintained we should copy was the power of expres- sion, the deep religious thought and devotional principles that guided the artists of those times. Crude and ill drawn as we might consider their productions, yet in their very crudity how vastly superior were they to some modern work! Passing to the second head of his subject—viz., “‘ The appli- cation of decoration to the various parts of a church with a special and peculiar significance to such parts and their uses,” the author said that in designing a church it was highly important to follow some definite arrangement in the decoration as well as in the planning of the building, so that if through want of furdsit should be found to be impossible to complete the whole scheme at once, yet,from time to time some- thing might be done as the money was forthcoming, until at last the whole stood revealed, finished perfect from the hands of the architect; the framework of walls and roofs and arches and gables filled in, not with fifty different ideas, but with one great indi- visible whole, embracing all stained glass, sculpture fresco, reredos, font—each of them part of one great scheme, and yet each bearing that peculiar signifi- cance fitting it to the uses which it either symbo- lised or was applied to. Chartres Cathedral was cited and described in detail as affording the most perfect instance of an iconographical scheme left to us; but instances were afforded by other large cathedrals in France, and in England we had a most beautiful example in Wells Cathedral. With this exception, and the ruined part of Croyland, we had no such stupendous facades, bristling with statues and encrusted with figure subjects, as were to be found in France; but the little we had was as carefully worked out as in the glorious fronts of Amiens, Paris, Chartres, Rheims, Rouen, or Strasbourg. Mr. Birch next proceeded to enumerate the subjects which should be placed in the various parts of the interior of a church. The subject generally depicted in the great west window is our Lord in Judgment, seated on the white throne and surrounded by the four beasts of the Apocalypse, encircled by the heavenly hierarchy. §. Michael stands as the angel of the Resurrection ; on the right hand the just, om the left the accursed, and below, the dead rising from their graves. This was the most general subject for the west end, and in the Greek Church there were special directions given how this should be repre- sented. ‘The manuscript of Panselinos was particu— larly explicit on this point. The font was invariably at the west end, and there were one or two subjects which ought to be represented by it or on it—sucle as the Passage of the Red Sea, and the Ark floating on the waters. The font at Hildesheim was particu- larly rich in iconography. In the decorations of the chancel the leading feature was the altar and reredos. A multiplicity of crosses should be avoided; there should be but one. In several very fine modern churches the Crucifixion had been put in this place unadvisedly, as Mr. Birch considered. But more fre- quent use should be made of types and anti-types. For the Blessed Sacrament there were Melchisidec’s offering and Abel’s more perfect sacrifice; Abraham offering up Isaac on Mount Moriah ; the Israelites ga- thering manna in the Wilderness. Of the Crucifixion there were the brazen serpent, the Passover, Moses strik- ing the rock. The Incarnation, represented by the An- nunciation, was shadowed forth in the burning busi and Gideon’s fleece; the Resurrection by Jonah’s deliverance ; the Ascension by Elijah’s fiery chariot. All these were subjects suitable, in combination with: one another, for the east end of a church. For the nave and aisles there were the Gospels and the various scenes and parables from the life of Our Lord, the beatitudes or acts of mercy, or scenes from the life of the particular saint to whom the church was dedi- cated. In the two main divisions of the church, nave and chancel, it was well to keep to certain sub- jects, appropriate to each: in the chancel the Heavenly Host on the upper part of the walls and ceiling, and below, the Incarnation and Redemption, Passion and Resurrection, Ascension, and final triumph of Our Lord; in the nave, the practicable part of religion, and the lessons to be derived from the New Testament. In the beautiful roof at Ely, it was seen how perfectly the late Mr. L’Estrange understood this subject of iconography, though Mr. Gambier Parry painted nearly if not all the subjects. Mr. L’Estrange’s sudden death was an irreparable loss to Christian art in this country. Mr. Parry’s own church, near Gloucester, was another example of an iconographical scheme perfectly worked out and superbly finished. In concluding his paper Mr. Birch condemned the utter absence of regard to the two leading principles laid down in his paper, in most of our modern attempts at church decoration, citing the metropolitan Cathedral of Canterbury and Westminster Abbey as examples, and strongly pro- testing against the Vandalism of simply turning God’s house into an historical statue gallery. He ridiculed the Chaucer window, and implied that we might just as reasonably have a Pickwick window. A discussion ensued, in which Messrs. G. R. Red- grave, H. C. Boyes, S. F. Clarkson, the Chairman, and others, took part, and Mr. Birch having briefly replied to the usual vote of thanks, the proceedings terminated. ag THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE NEW LAW COURTS. Fripay, Marcu 22np. R. C. BENTINCK rose to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether thefinally settled designs for the new building of the Courts of Justice were identical in all material particulars with those ex- hibited in the Library of the House in the month of July last, and to move that, in the opinion of the House, the designs prepared by Mr. Street for the new building of the Courts of Justice were unsatis- factory, and ought not to be executed. For many years it had been considered that, ingsmuch as the House of Commons voted money for the erection of large public buildings, they should have some voice as to the selection of the plans. He did not hesitate to affirm that when the eye of the House had been removed from those plans they invariably met with disaster; and such had certainly been the case in this instance. For a year or two the matter had slept, and it was not till the Session before last that his right hon. friend the member for East Sustex called attention to the plans, when the First Com- missioner stated that the foundations were being proceeded with, but gave no hint as to what archi-