SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN TURNED GOTH.

To the Editor of the Ecclesiologist.

DEAR SIR, Many of the architects of the present day in England and elsewhere seem determined, if they cannot leave a blessing behind them, at least to leave a good hearty malediction in sæcula sæculorum, i.e., as long as Europe takes any interest in the practice and history of what is beautiful in the works of man. What with scraping, and cleaning, altering, and rearranging, adapting, restoring, and under whatever names this nineteenth century demon discovers himself, we are with very fair success doing our best to obliterate or disfigure all that our fathers have left us. There have been those delightful doings at Hexham, the stupid niggardly destruction at Worcester. How shall I designate the marvellous proposition of destroying Archbishop Laud's porch at S. Mary's, Oxford, containing as it does Post-Reformation sculpture, and being quite as good in every respect as S. Mary's itself, the spire excepted? Fortunately, for the present this shameful idea has been abandoned. But why mention a few instances, except indeed to indicate what one is pointing to? The mere catalogue of interesting relics of all ages wantonly destroyed, and of works of art defaced and spoiled within the last forty years would fill volumes.

There is, however, one class of offences at present but just beginning, although threatening to increase in a marvellous degree, a class so impudently audacious, that one cannot help writing, difficile est non scribere; facit indignatio is hardly strong enough to express the feeling of contempt which of itself springs up and well nigh chokes any but the narrowest minded mediævalist. Our own efforts in proportion, taste, harmony, carving, sculpture, &c., &c. connected with architecture have been so satisfactory, so worthy of self-laudation, that we have at last begun not only to build new churches, and restore old; to destroy good 15th century work, and substitute bad sham 13th, or earlier, but we are going mutare quadrata rotundis. We intend to give the classicists a fearful blow by Gothicizing Sir Christopher Wren. A fearful blow indeed, as likely as anything else to throw back our own cause for another century or so. Perhaps some of them would like to take a turn at the Raphaels, Peruginos, Francias, &c., and give them Mantegna or Giotto backgrounds. England has a history in art as well as in other matters, and in that history Inigo Jones and Sir Christopher Wren bear a conspicuous place. That Wren committed some horrible acts I am not going to deny. That he in many ways missed the most splendid opportunities ever offered to man, I fully allow. That many of his churches are ugly to an excess, is certain. Still he was in his way far too great a man to deserve being tampered with by any of the Browns and Robinsons of the present day. Wren knew very well what he was about; he did not, as is so often done at the present day, make a design, which might be Italian or Gothic, according to the taste of the customer. He hated Gothic,

more's the pity, but still it is the fact, and it is silly nonsense to attempt to transmute him into a Goth. The whole spirit of his work was antagonistic to Medievalism. But even supposing the thing could be done in the most complete and entirely satisfactory manner; suppose we could turn his churches into first-rate Gothic or Romanesque ones, still I maintain that it would be a cruel barbarism to do 80. We have no earthly right to tear this page out of our history, or to make a poor palimpsest of it.

Taking this historical view of the question, I very much doubt the wisdom of destroying the best of Sir J. Reynolds' and West's windows. At least their masterpieces seem to me worthy of preservation, though entirely unworthy of imitation; and after all, except in the matter of colour, not always in that, very little is gained by the exchange even from an aesthetic point of view.

Let any one think as poorly as he will of Wrennian style, there is this in which we certainly do not surpass his work; the execution whether of stone, metal, or woodwork, is almost invariably quite admirable. But what do our harlequins care for that? The magic stroke of their wand batters down or otherwise abolishes some of the finest carvings, &c., without remorse. The Wrennian devil is to be transformed at any price, and in place of him we get a bastard Romanesque stuff, probably agreeable to the architect employed: it can surely please no one else.

In the case of S. Michael's, Cornhill, as Wren had given a Gothic tower of fair proportions, there was some excuse for correcting Wren, and making the church itself agree with its tower: and very sumptuously the work has been done. The woodwork is especially worthy of praise in every way. The iron work is pretty enough in design, but unsatisfactory in execution; the glass fair. In itself then this particular alteration is not without excuse, and has been upon the whole as well carried out as we could expect. But what are we to say to the next instance, the church in Aldermanbury? Has the slightest improvement been gained by the large outlay? I say emphatically, none whatever, as far as the exterior is concerned. It is worse than ever. Any thing more absurd than the old semicircular dormer light turned into a sort of carpenter's Gothic half-rose window cannot, as I think, be imagined. It and all the other windows are made more hideous by a broad band of cold common blue glass round the edges. I say that the whole business in this case is a wanton insult to the memory of Wren without any advantage.

And now just a line on the boldest stroke in this direction which has been attempted. Have we reason to be satisfied with what has been done at S. Paul's Cathedral? If there was a case in England where one ought to have hesitated before touching a line, it is in this, Wren's greatest work. If alteration were proved to be really necessary, for I will admit no other excuse for tampering with such a work at all, then what were the duties of those to whom this splendid structure has been committed? First and foremost to do nothing not absolutely necessary. Then it was their part carefully to consider what should be done. They were bound also, after, with all possible deliberation, they had determined upon the alterations and im

provements, to intrust the work to the very first men of the day. How have they fulfilled their task? Has any corresponding advantage been gained by the alteration of the choir, the displacement, and possible destruction of the fine iron gates and grilles; the removal of the beautiful organ screen? In this last case I am quite at a loss to see any thing that has been gained. Was the screen removed for artistic reasons? was it for effect? to get the perfect vista from west to east? If so, it has, in my opinion, signally failed. The proportions of the church were planned with a due regard to this screen. If Wren had not intended the screen to be there, he would no doubt have altered other points. It does not follow that because it is well to remove the organ from between the choir and nave of our Gothic cathedrals, for which place the original architects had designed none, that it would also be right to remove Wren's screen which he did design himself. If for ritual reasons the destruction was adjudged necessary, then, though I differ in opinion from the judges, the excuse may be admitted. If it was simply a matter of taste, I say the act was a mere unworthy piece of Vandalism. From no single point of view has the cathedral been improved by it. And even if to our eyes great additional beauty were gained, it was still a barbarous act to alter such a work as this. No doubt many of our very best cathedrals could be altered by a very great artist for the better, but what miserable work we should most of us esteem all such alterations. Is it not really like that fool's task that used to be set our grandmothers of correcting the English of Addison and his contemporaries? The 18th century was quite as much in earnest as we are, those men believed themselves quite right, and in perfect good taste when they stuck Italian, or other incongruous windows into Gothic buildings. How are we a whit better morally than they, when we try to Gothicize Wren? But to return to S. Paul's. Have the committee settled what must be destroyed, and what is to be done, or are they going on patch-work fashion, without any real defined end or purpose?

They are in the midst of decorating the choir, and yet all of a sudden, though funds are said to be quite inadequate to the task, they must re-gild the ball and cross. Not having ascended, I cannot say how far re-gilding was needed :—from below one would have fixed twenty years' time as about the period at which it would be required-but, of course, we may be mistaken in this. As far as the work is already finished, plain mechanical gilding is the only satisfactory thing that has been done. If all the bays are to be finished as that before the altar, all I can say is, that I wish the whole thing had been left as it was. It is a bad design, worse executed, as poor, false, and spiritless as one can desire to see. Has the art-world again anything to hope in the designs for the mosaics? Has anything been done by the gentleman chosen to inspire confidence and to allay the disappointment of the work being intrusted to a foreigner? Look again at the glass. There are the pair of stained windows at the west, where we can hardly make up our mind which to wonder at most-the designs or the work. The grisaille again which is just over the dome gallery, in idea is good enough, but in execution quite ineffective. This glass is not nearly bold enough: when the London dirt gets well

settled, the effect will be but little better than the old square paned windows.

Here then we have two of Wren's great works tampered with and altered, in both cases much having been done which ought certainly never to have been dreamt of, some things of more than questionable advantage. At the same time through these examples we are running the risk of setting a fashion of altering this class of churches for alteration's sake, which must eventually recoil on ourselves. What if a Wren mania were to set in, and all the altered churches were to be restored to their original design? The reason for this fashion is probably partly owing to the large repair funds attached to some of the city churches. But there are legitimate ways of spending the largest of these without meddling with Wren's architecture. The furniture of all churches has always been subject to change, and may well be renovated and replaced from time to time. Suppose again, when funds are very large, they were spent upon frescoes by really great men. Mere copies from the antique, individually, I would rather not have at any price. I would not permit them if offered for nothing. But how many rising and even already famous artists would be delighted with such an opportunity as that of frescoing a good city church. Then again with glass and metal work, they, with their too large funds, might afford such work as is pretended to be impossible now through want of money. The church authorities at any rate cannot possibly do worse with their funds than by employing them upon spoiling the architecture of the 16th and 17th centuries. They had better throw the money away altogether. The advocates of Gothic architecture have too many sins to answer for in Gothic church restoration to be able to bear the additional burden of converting Sir Christopher Wren.

Yours truly,

J. C. J.

HINTS ON BUILDING CHURCHES, SCHOOLS AND PARSONAGES IN PLACES EXPOSED TO TROPICAL HEATS AND RAINS.

BY JOHN CAMERON, ESQ., C.E., (of Bombay.)

Ir will be found here, as in England, that Gothic architecture is most suitable for churches, principally because other styles depend so entirely on the amount of ornament expended upon them for their beauty. In India, native carving, though very elaborate, is out of all proportion : and as in Gothic architecture so much depends on this, it is desirable to confine ourselves to the simplest description of it, until workmen are better instructed in their art.

It seems that Early English architecture, as little decorated as possible and well proportioned, is the best for the purpose of church building in India.

As far as possible, all mullioned windows ought to be avoided, unless

the mullions are brought from England. A simple trefoil window may perhaps be attempted with some prospect of success, but nothing beyond it. But it will be found that the stone in this part of India1 is unfit for mullions, and will not admit of elegant carving, even if the workmen were to be obtained. Lancet windows, singly or in groups, with a simple fillet over them, will be found most easy of execution.

Should any aisles be built, simple octagonal columns, with the soffit of the arches of half octagon form, will be the best to adopt; and for the base and capitals the simplest mouldings ought to be used.

In designing any church for India, considering the small number of Christians congregated in each place, it is desirable that whatever is built should be as much as possible a perfect church in itself, at the same time admitting of being extended to form a large church of uniform design. This can be done by building the nave first, dividing off a temporary vestry. But this plan is not very convenient, as it would be necessary to decide whether there should be any aisles; for in this case they would require to be built about the same time, or at least the arches for them; these arches would entail some expense, without affording any additional accommodation, and if the church should never require to be enlarged, the incompleteness of it would be very apparent.

The most economical and useful plan would seem to be the completion of a chancel, with an apse and vestry; this might be made large enough to accommodate (say) one hundred adults. If more accommodation was afterwards required, to the extent of a few hundreds, the chancel could be made to form part of a large church. If the accommodation required seemed likely to be limited to a few more than a hundred, the apse could be removed, and a small chancel built; the building in either case would be complete in itself.

For ordinary country churches in this part of India, the simplest design for a church, to accommodate a congregation of 400 or 500 people, will consist of a chancel, transept and nave, with a tower at the intersection. This tower can be made to serve as a ventilator for the church, by means of windows in it: but should a peal of bells be hung in it, it would be necessary to groin the tower at such a height as to admit of ventilators being inserted. The style of masonry for churches will of course depend on the funds to be obtained, but a very neat appearance can be obtained by building cobble walls, with cut stone dressing to windows, doors, gables and buttresses, and also all the arched work in the aisles and columns.

The interior can be plastered with ordinary or polished chunam, leaving all the cut stone-work bare. The floor can be Minton's encaustic tiles, or teak planking, or chunam, or ordinary stone paving. All those parts of the floor, where the congregation sit, ought to be covered with cocoa-nut fibre, to prevent any bad effects from the excessive dampness during the monsoon.

The seats ought to be made to contain five persons, and be strongly framed of teak-wood, suitable in design, but with no attempt at ornament. Open benches, such as are used in most modern churches in England, with perhaps a little more open work, so as to admit of 1 The neighbourhood of Egutpoora, in the Ghaut, Western India.