351 NOTICES AND ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. S. JOHN'S, HAWARDEN. DEAR SIR,-Would you allow me a short space in your next for explanation ? I was, the other day, turning over the pages of the April, 1860, No. of the Ecclesiologist, where, at page 91, I found an account of a Meeting at Arklow House, at which my friend, Mr. Pullan, is represented as coming forward and exhibiting the "original sketch for the Polychromatic decoration of S. John's, Hawarden, the design as well as execution of which had been, by mistake, attributed to the Rev. J. Troughton." And again, at page 120, “Mr. Pullan acted as the friend and adviser of Mr. Troughton throughout." After so long an interval, and when the affair may have been unnoticed or forgotten by your readers, it may seem trifling to return to it, but, lest by saying nothing I should be thought to acquiesce in this as a sufficiently exact statement, and be thought a mere imitator, I shall be much obliged by your allowing me to say that to Mr. Pullan I am indebted for almost all the designs or patterns on the walls; for the designs of the chancel-screen; the prayer-desk, and font crane. But, and it is the feature in S. John's which seems to have attracted the attention of the Ecclesiologist, for the picture part of the decoration, out of an historical series on wall, or panel, or glass, or in sculpture, of nearly sixty subjects, some of which are after well-known German pictures, altered here and there, some after representations less well known, and some of which are timid attempts at original design— of all these one only is due to Mr. Pullan. I have the highest esteem for my friend, Mr. Pullan, and the kindly aid and sympathy I have had from his mature taste and judgment in the execution of this work, but at the same time, I wish to place the affair, if possible, in a truer light, and to show that I have not acted entirely under his direction, and that it is not the execution of the work only for which I am responsible. There must be a mistake somewhere about the "original design" alluded to. It is true there was an original design, but it was for the chancel, and not the nave; and moreover, it was never acted upon. I imagine that allusion is here made to a drawing begun here when the work had made considerable progress, finished elsewhere, and shown, some years ago, in the Royal Academy Exhibition. Thanking you for allowing me to make this explanation, Sept. 19, 1861. I am, dear sir, J. E. TROUGHTON. The Manual of Illumination, by Messrs. Bradley and Goodwin, which we have already favourably noticed, has gone into an eighth edition and an improved and enlarged form under the editorial care of Mr. J. J. Laing. All the illustrations seem to have been redrawn and reengraved by Mr. Laing, who, as a late assistant of Mr. Ruskin's, seems to be a very competent artist. Mr. Laing has also added to this useful and unpretending little volume a kind of supplement which he calls a " Companion of Illustrations." In this he gives us a number of designs for Borders, Capital Letters, Texts, and Detail Finishings. These range from the twelfth century to the fourteenth ; and comprise patterns from Illuminated manuscripts, and at least one design, representing S. Mary of Egypt, from a stained glass window at Chartres. The popularity of this deserving little book proves that the art of illumination is very extensively pursued. The volume is published by Messrs. Winsor and Newton, the Artists' Colourmen, and serves as an admirable advertisement of their wares. A correspondent, A. S., who gives his name, complains not without reason that the greater part of the roodscreen in Kingston church, Surrey, has recently been removed, and that the remainder is soon to follow it. Such useless destruction is greatly to be lamented. In this case it cannot be pretended that the screen impeded the view of the altar. We have received some interesting details of the consecration of the new church of S. Peter, Draycot, Somersetshire, designed by Mr. C. E. Giles, late of Taunton. If our correspondent or the architect could favour us with a sight of the drawings we should be able to speak as to the architectural merits of the building. We are obliged to reserve our criticism of such works to those with whom we are personally acquainted. Mr. E. R. Robson, of Durham, requests us to correct an error which occurred on page 206 of our current volume. The church at Shincliffe, there mentioned, is in the parish of S. Oswald, Durham, but is itself dedicated in honour of S. Mary. We have to acknowledge with many thanks the receipt from the Senatus Academicus of Christiania of a Latin letter on the subject of the Solennia Academica, to be held on the 2nd of September, in commemoration of the foundation of the Royal Norwegian University fifty years ago. The spirited and liberal way in which the University of Christiania maintains friendly communication with learned bodies in foreign countries is deserving of all praise. THE ECCLESIOLOGIST. "Surge igitur et fac: et erit Dominus tecum." No. CXLVII.-DECEMBER, 1861. (NEW SERIES, NO. CXI.) ON ITALIAN POINTED ARCHITECTURE. A Lecture delivered at the Architectural Exhibition, April 5, 1859. By GEORGE EDMUND STREET, Esq. I THINK I may venture to assume that it is not because the mediaval architecture of Italy is less decidedly Gothic than any other variety of the style, that it has been selected as the subject for the only lecture at all bearing on mediæval art in the course provided by the Committee of the Exhibition for this season, the more so since five out of six among the exhibiting members seem to be devoting themselves, more or less, to the revival of Pointed Architecture; or at least to the exhibition of designs in the Pointed style. It is by a mere accident, doubtless, that no other and abler advocate of the claims of that style will this year have an opportunity of addressing an audience from this place; whilst, as regards the subject on which I am asked to speak, I am sure I may conclude that the committee, feeling—and let me say, rightly feeling the importance of an exact appreciation of the merits and failings of the much talked of and yet but little known Italian architecture of the middle ages, have thought it well to enlist me in their service, so that what I have been able to learn in my Italian journeys may be made available to others. I am not surprised at their wish; for one cannot look round these walls without thinking somewhat sadly of the course which some architects are taking in their efforts after some new thing. The mere aim at newness without diligent study of old buildings can never end successfully; least of all where it shows itself in an attempt to bring in features from a style so little understood as Italian Gothic, and by way of adornment of a style like our own national Gothic, not so thoroughly known as it ought first of all to be by every English architect. It is, as you all know, but very recently that the Gothic architecture of Italy has been at all carefully studied. Mr. Hope, in his most valuable "History of Architecture," whilst giving great attention to Italian buildings, dealt mainly with history, and but little with æsthetics. Of Professor Willis the same may be said, and though the illustrations in the books of both these authors are poor and meagre, their works will always retain their value, and rather increase it in proportion as all of us become familiarised with many of the most remarkable of the buildings to which they refer, by means of photographs, the value of which can hardly be over-estimated so far as regards the rendering of form without colour. Since the publication of Mr. Hope's and Professor Willis's works, we have had in Mr. Ruskin's volumes, the "Stones of Venice," the first attempt to claim all that it deserves for Italian architecture; and their only fault appears to me to be the rather depreciatory way in which our own Gothic buildings are spoken of in comparison with those in which he is more especially interested. It is true that Mr. Ruskin nominally confines himself to Venice, but his pages are full of instruction in regard to the architecture of the Mainland, whilst they have opened up a mine of suggestive teaching which has, I believe, already done incalculable service to our art, and which only requires to be followed out in the same thoughtful way to effect good everywhere without any alloy. Besides these, there have been other publications of extreme value, on the detail of Italian buildings, so that it might seem almost needless for me to trouble you with my views upon the subject. Yet with all these publications it is clear that there is still much ignorance of the style, and much danger arising from this ignorance. We run only too great a risk just now of admiring overmuch and attempting to introduce what are supposed to be its main features without first of all really knowing what they are. For ages our English architects have had no eye for colour. This fault is generally admitted, and every one is striving to atone for it by the sudden introduction of colour in all directions, most of which is supposed, I believe, to be founded on Italian examples. This hot haste is dangerous, for if there is one lesson taught more forcibly by those buildings than another, it is that where colour is to be introduced it must be done thoughtfully, and with a full sense of the increased danger of failure in our works which its use involves. For remember always, that though bad architecture is sad work, bad architecture badly coloured is more than doubly sad, and that there can be no greater error than to suppose that the introduction of colour will allow us to pay less attention to form than, or even as little as, before. I wish that all who are striving in this direction would endeavour to see for themselves some of the ancient works whose glories they are anxious to revive; they would find that theirs is an ordered beauty-grave, sober, dignified; free from affectation, conceit, or mere desire of display; but yet of a nature which requires peremptorily of all who would emulate it not only that good taste and careful practice which all good art requires, but, at the same time, that much more rare and precious gift, a natural instinct for good colour. Let me say, before I conclude these. prefatory remarks, that I am fully aware of the need of being careful in what I say; the more as I labour in some quarters under the entirely undeserved imputation of being a blind admirer of everything Italian; with how much-or rather how little-justice you will be able to decide when you have heard what I have to say this evening. : The difficulty of compressing such a subject within reasonable limits is so great that almost all reference to the evidences of developement from earlier buildings, of which most architecture affords examples, must be avoided and taking you at once to the buildings themselves, I will endeavour to convey a general idea of their character by a description of their more prominent features, observing by the way that I propose only to speak of buildings which I have myself seen. I can tell you nothing of Rome, Naples, or Sicily, or generally of southern Italy. The omission is perhaps not of great importance. It is true that in Sicily there appears to be as much subject for study as in any part of Europe, but as far as can be judged from illustrations, the mediæval architecture of Rome and Naples seems to be very inferior to that of the north of Italy, while at the same time it is less Gothic. We have two influences brought out very forcibly in these Italian buildings. These are local and personal. The Venetian, Pisan, Genoese, and Veronese, for instance, are all distinctly local styles, in which early traditions were preserved to some extent from first to last; and on the other hand, it is impossible not to notice the very great personal influence exercised over their descendants, as well as over their contemporaries, by some of the greater Italian architects, of whom I may adduce Nicola Pisano as the most eminent example. There is a third influence which must not be overlooked-that of foreign architects. Milan cathedral, designed by a German, is so thoroughly non-Italian that I shall not once have to allude to it; San Francesco at Assisi was evidently the work of a foreigner; and I think that Genoa cathedral owes something of its peculiar character to contact with French art. Vercelli is adduced often as another instance, but I doubt, so far as I can judge by drawings, whether it can justly be included in the list. In the Middle Ages the Italians, I suppose, led a life more akin to our own at the present day than any other people. The country was populous, the cities numerous and rich, and the people full of emulation and individuality. In England and in France one of the most striking facts is the almost complete absence of any thing very obviously personal in the art of the Middle Ages. The history of our old architects would be that of a race of giants, so equally matched that it is difficult to assign the pre-eminence to any one over the rest. We have had no Nicola Pisano here; our old architects' work is singularly equal in its character in each period; and whether it was displayed in the little village church lying concealed on the banks of a rippling stream, or in the vast abbey of some sequestered valley, or in the cathedral church of the busy city, there seems to be matter for equal admiration in each. In Italy, on the other hand, we see a number of individual architects exercising each their peculiar influence, varying very much in their skill and power, and having moreover the doubtful advantage of a constant recollection of the works of a different style of art from whose traditions they never escaped. Placed, in short, very much in the position that we are at the present day, they never wrought with the |