311 RESTORATION IN FRANCE. To the Editor of the Ecclesiologist. SIR, I entirely concur with your correspondent, "a Member of the Oxford Architectural and Historical Society," that much good might ensue if the subject of restoration were thoroughly discussed with the French architects. His remark that "there is no public opinion, no general taste for the preservation of ancient monuments, the clergy are powerless, the people careless, the government reckless," is true enough, and to the last-mentioned item must be attributed at least the destruction wholesale of churches. But how, indeed, can a military despotism cultivate a love for old work of any kind ? Streets must be carried in a straight line, else they cannot be swept by cannon; and if an unfortunate church be in the way, how can government help that? There is absolutely no hope for the preservation of any number of churches if they happen to stand in the way of Napoleonic ideas, as the wanton and wholesale destruction in Rouen alone can testify. But I do think there is hope of producing a more conservative tone in the restorations, by first obtaining that tone in the minds of their directors -the French architects themselves; and this by the influence of discussion generally, and protests to particular architects in special cases; for the overruling influence of government, although having all restorations in its hands generally, will scarcely extend to the contravention of its own architect's opinion on details of sculpture, &c. I ought to state that it is not true that at the beautiful little church of S. Gilles, at Caen, "the work of destruction is proceeding with full vigour," as your correspondent alleges. Not a stone is yet touched, and there is therefore yet time for a vigorous remonstrance from the Ecclesiological Society, which (supposing the idea to be not, in this case, purely Napoleonic) might save the church. The adjoining Abbaye aux Dames, however, is suffering from an unnecessary refacing at the west end and north transept by M. Rubrique of Paris, who, in common with the majority, does not spare ancient sculpture, however perfect. No better example of the pestilence of scraping can be adduced than the interior of S. Etienne in this same town, for it presents an appearance as white as a Dover cliff, and does not seem eight years old, much less eight hundred. The venerable church of S. Croix, at S. Lo, is in process of complete rebuilding; a priest informed me that "he thought" the Romanesque nave arcades and the west door with its sculptured tympanum would be incorporated in the new church, but I could not learn definitively. An Avranches architect is in this case responsible, I believe. I could multiply instances in which the French are restoring when they ought to be preserving, and the indignation of all ecclesiologists is fully justified; but there is the fact remaining that we in England are not wholly blameless. Old S. Mary Redcliffe is becoming year by year new S. Mary Redcliffe; Wells is all scraped inside, and some of its wonderful sculpture has been tampered with; the early groining at the eastern end of Winchester has been scraped, and at this moment the chapel of the Holy Sepulchre in the same cathedral (albeit covered with beautiful frescoes) is used as a place for the four bellows-blowers to the immense organ. Letters, too, have appeared in the public journals, complaining of ill-doings at Lanercost, Hexham, York, Bristol, and other places. It becomes us, then, not to provoke hostility which might defeat the end in view, but to meet the French architects on the common grounds of a friendly discussion, which I hope the Ecclesiological Society will do everything in its power to promote. I am, dear Sir, Yours faithfully, E. R. ROBSON. P.S.-Allow me to concur with Mr. Street in the extreme goodness of the restoration at Châlons-sur-Marne. Coutances is untouched by restoration, and the Vicar-General seems to be fully aware that it is unnecessary. S. MATTHIAS', STOKE NEWINGTON. To the Editor of the Ecclesiologist. 4, Berners Street, London, W., Sept. 4th, 1861. DEAR SIR,-Whilst hoping that some one more disinterested than I can be may take up and answer the various points in the letter of your correspondent, "A. H.," in reference to the painted glass of the abovenamed church, perhaps it is as well that the glass painter should make a few remarks upon them. Allow me to state that, in this series of windows, I worked solely under the direction, not alone for general treatment, but also for every detail of drawing and design, of the able Architect of the church, so acknowledged an authority upon glass painting. This fact is well known; and that, therefore, the merits and demerits of the work are his alone. The statement that the glass used is of a thin description is not true, nor is that in reference to the price for the west window, which is to be £250. Of these two facts, "A. H." would have best been certain before announcing them; the glass is, on the contrary, of a thick quality, being IN EVERY POSSIBLE CASE, AND INCLUSIVE OF THE ENTIRE GRISAILLE, of that glass made by Messrs. Powell; the concealment of wire-guard can only be obtained at the expense of brilliancy and transparency. No deprecation with regard to "ruthless criticism" is called for. I am willing to undergo the severest in the power of your correspondent to bestow, provided the facts be correctly stated. With regard to the designs for the west window, they have already been duly submitted to the architect and the authorities at Stoke Newington, and I feel it to be unnecessary to seek further opinions. I might say much more in regard to this letter, but shall only observe, that it would have been more satisfactory in every way had you yourself inspected the works before giving publication to a statement plainly not impartial, and in many points of which I am sure that upon examination you would not coincide. I am, dear Sir, Your obedient servant, ARTHUR O'CONNOR. To the Editor of the Ecclesiologist. DEAR SIR,-As your correspondent, "A. H.," seems to have been aroused by "the authorities" of S. Matthias to express some very un. favourable criticisms upon the architect and glass-painter, perhaps you will admit a reply from one who has been at some pains to understand the designs of the architect in every part of the work. Having in the first instance intrusted the building of our church to a man of universally acknowledged genius and skill, we have all along carefully abstained from marring his work, by ignorant interference on our parts, for which he alone would be judged by posterity long after “ A. H.” and "the authorities" are forgotten. And as he has produced a building which for dignity and solemnity will not be easily surpassed, and of which neither he nor ourselves will ever have cause to be ashamed, we have resolved to give him all the support we are able in the completion of his designs. And I have no doubt that future generations will look upon S. Matthias as a noble work of genius. A. H." informs your readers that the glass-painter has rendered the peculiarity of the tracery still more conspicuous;" that is to say, he has worked harmoniously with the architect, which is not the case in the majority of our churches. The glass at S. Matthias' adapts itself to the forms it has to fill; and it is moreover upon a regular plan as regards the subjects. "A. H." states that "the general plan of the glass-painter is to place a group in the head." This is quite correct, and common sense would dictate such a treatment of these windows. This is what the architect intended. The head is the only field in which a group can be placed, and the narrow lights below are designed for single figures. "A. H.'s" joke upon martyrdom by "sus. per coll." so closely borders on the profane (since the principal figure, said to be so placed, is that of our Blessed LORD) that one wonders how such a thought could ever have crossed any reverent mind, especially when the solid-looking pavement on which the figures stand is palpable enough to all. Is there any old religious work of art which may not easily be turned into ridicule by any person who views it without reverence? Nothing is easier, and writers in "Punch" have done this sort of work better than "A. H." I am not sufficiently learned to know that the use of “ grisaille," and colour under the feet of a figure, is either new or strange; but I . know that it is far more agreeable to the eye than too much positive colour; and no doubt it will be found most essential when all the windows are finished. Are there not abundant authorities for it in the old glass? The arrangement of the figures near to the subjects brings the most highly-coloured parts of the windows together; and there is sufficient colour in the " grisaille" to connect and sustain the whole. "A. H." complains of the glass being "so thin that the wire-screen shows through," which simply means that the glass is transparent, as it should be. It is Powell's best glass, such as is used by all good painters; and time will darken it as it has all the old glass. Or if "A. H." likes shams it may be done in half an hour with a little putty. Again, "the colours are poor and much wanting in depthoften very deficient in positive colour." There may be parts in which a little more depth might have been given. What does "A. H." want? Would he have unrelieved positive colour? If so, where will he find it in any good painting? He considers the "faces. . . bad in drawing, and worse in colour." They certainly are not the pretty namby-pamby faces so common in modern religious pictures. The real religious work of any age is never done by men of that stamp. Prophets and Apostles, the men "of whom the world was not worthy," were not of that type; but often were plain, insignificant and contemptible in the eyes of men. They, like their Divine Master, were used to rough work, and could kneel on the bare ground in the desert, or on the mountain-top-wholly unlike our young devotees whose kneeling too often depends upon a hassock. "A. H." seems to be much amused with "a lad in very tight pantaloons." This "lad" was copied from one of Perugino's finest pictures in the National Gallery. What sort of costume would "A. H." prefer? that of our day, with the hands thrust into the trouser-pockets? Such great men as Perugino (see his " Martyrdom of S. Sebastian"), and Giovanni Sanzio, in his "Resurrection of our LORD," both published by the Arundel Society, did not think it so very ludicrous to have figures in "pantaloons;" neither have able judges deemed them too ridiculous for this refined age. To write thus on any religious subject is indeed miserable work, and I am sorry that "A. H." has been betrayed into it. He adverts to what he is pleased to call "the hideous west window." I know some very good judges who consider it one of the most striking features of the church, and so I think it will appear to all unprejudiced persons, when filled with good glass, which I will endeavour to secure. And "A. H." would be much better employed in helping forward this work, than in ridiculing a church for which we have much reason to be thankful. The architect of such churches as All Saints', S. Alban, Baldwin Gardens, and S. Matthias, deserves the respect, at least, of all who are interested in the great Church movement; for however men may criticize peculiar features, all must admit that his buildings are really churches designed for the worship and glory of GoD. The buttress at the west end is more in keeping than it is at the east end of Dorchester church. I am glad that there is one point on which I can agree with "A. H." And there is some satisfaction in knowing that neither the glass nor anything else in S. Matthias would "satisfy the deacons of an advanced little Bethel." All there is too stern and real for them, but I trust not for " A. H." I am, dear Sir, R. BRETT, Churchwarden. [These letters must close this controversy. Our friend Mr. Brett must be reminded that our correspondent, "A. H." made a merely æsthetic criticism, without intending any personal disrespect to the eminent architect of S. Matthias or to the manufacturer of the stained glass. The truth is, that with respect to colour in general, and stained glass in particular, there are differences of opinion which it is impossible to reconcile. We do not blame the authorities of S. Matthias for trusting themselves to Mr. Butterfield's guidance and it is a satisfaction to have brought out the fact that that gentleman is responsible for the decorations of the church. But it is probable that, in the particular matter now under discussion, we should ourselves sympathize, to some extent at least, with our first correspondent.] ON BELL RINGING. To the Editor of the Ecclesiologist. SIR, I have read an interesting letter, under the above title in the Ecclesiologist for August. Observing in it that the writer had felt, in common with many others, the evils attaching to bell ringing on Sundays (the day whereon, of all days, the sound of the bells ought to be heard,) I take the liberty of informing your contributor and readers generally, that a machine has been invented and patented, by Mr. Jones, an Engineer, of Pendleton, near Manchester, for ringing church bells. Several of his machines have been erected, and give general satisfaction. The power of sound is a little diminished, but the quality is decidedly improved by the machine. Its cost is about £30; but I think it is capable of considerable improvement. Thinking the knowledge of such a machine might be useful, I venture to trouble you with this letter, I am, Sir, Yours obediently, Friesland Parsonage, August 19, 1861. GEORGE VENABLES, S.C.L., |