1847.] ECCLESIASTICAL splendid altar tombs “ where mitred prelates and grave
doctors sleep,” of ..
“Those rich cathedral fanes (Gothic ill-named) where harmony results From disunited parts, and shapes minute, At once distinct and blended, boldly form ‘One vast majestic whole,”
would, although a “labour of love,” be beyond our power in this place.
What must have been the emotions produced in the minds of men by these glorious structures, can be in some sort conceived ; for in our times, notwithstanding the deseerations of Protestantism in these countries, and the degeneracy of taste, and vitiating influence of Pagan art on the Continent since the sixteenth cen- tury, they affect the imagination in such a way as no works of ancient or revived Pagan art ever can. “Let one only represent to himself,” says a,modern French writer, “the effect of the lights on those prodigi monuments, when the clergy moved in procession through those forests of columns, animating the dark masses, passing and repassing through th i under those complicated arches, wit ments, its tapers, and its chants, when light of unearthly harmony issued from the choir, whil ocean of people responded from the shade below ; there was the true drama, the true my ‘y, the representa- tion of the journey of humanity through the three worlds, that sublime vision which Dante has immor- talized in the “ Divina Commedia.”
Turning from the contemplation of the works of our Catholic ancestors, to those of our own day, the con- trast presented is extremely painful. To point out errors, is not a grateful task, though a necessary duty 5 for unless the faults are clearly shown, it will be im- Possible to expect improvement. Nor does it suffice to point out the errors, unless the way of avoiding them is also made clear. If we be severe in our cen- sures, we beg to assure our readers that our reproaches, are not intended for individuals“ Nos omnes paccare- mis.” We cannot blame those who have erred in ignorance, but the time has come to mend ovr ways.
uring the last thirty years, as much money has been raised within the city of Dublin, and expended on the edifices erected therein for Catholic worsh -would have built to appropriate churches in ¢ parish of the metropolis. We select Dublin as our example, for what has been done there, is of a piece with what has occurred over the entire kingdom. We are sorry to say that not one of those edifices ap- Proaches the idea of an ancient Catholic church. ‘They all scem to have heen designed and carried for- ward in utter ignorance of every principle and rule of ecclesiastical art, and with a total disregard of all ancient precedent, the only safe and legitimate guide in those cases, Individual taste scems to have been the sole director in those structures, or more properly Speaking, caprice, for we can really see no marks of genuine taste about them. This we conceive to have been one of the most fruitful sources of error. Eccle- siastical, as well as other arts, has its fixed principles, beyond which the greatest genius cannot travel far without perpetrating the most grievous impropricties.
‘e have seen that Catholic symbolism is the true source of Christian art; and we cannot therefore be surprised, that those who either were ignorant of, or despised the source, should greatly err concerning its
pas
material development. We do not mean that it is im-
ARCHITECTURE. TLL
possible to arrive at future developments of Christian art. That, indeed, would be limiting the powers of the human mind to a very narrow sphere. But we contend, that a new development of art never has been, or never can be the production of an individual mind, but the growth of times and circumstances. In exist- ing art there may be one example better than another, according to the ability and character of the mind, which conceived and matured the design, yet all will bear evident marks of a common origin and tolerably fixed principle. The middle ages produced a species of art, which, as we have scen, was the offspring of the church, most. suitable in all its arrangements for the purposes of religion, and illustrative of its doc- trincs. Its beauty and majesty are undeniable. It affects with religious emotions the hardest hearts and the most sceptical minds. Why not return to that style in our new churches, and give up the vain, selfish, and unattainable notion of “ originality,” or rather, our false ideas of originality ; for surely there is such a thing as “the union of genius and imitation.” We hold that the canon of Hugo de St. Victor, concerning ecclesiastical music, is equally applicable to ecclesins- tical architecture—* Non enim decet, ut cantus e usus ecclesiasticus fieri debet secundum arbitrium diversorum, sed firmiter sercandus est secundum scripta et instituta majorun.”
‘A contemporary periodical* contains the following apposite passage respecting future developments, which we cannot help giving in full: “One caution, and then we conclude. Because Christian architecture may be developed, it does not follow that we are the genera- tion that shall develope it. Far otherwise; we are children, and disobedient ones moreover, and very ignorant, and hitherto extremely idle and truant. We have numberless faults to atone for, and an incaleula- ble amount of ignorance to overcome, before we can hope to'do anything towards developing any future degree of excellence in Christian art. We have not yet learned our alphabet, and it is absurd to attempt to compose; we do not know the names of our tools, and it is insane to attempt to model. All that we can expect to do is, to copy carefully in hopes of realizing at the last, through numberless copyings, some first principles which we may store up for our children to make use of. Our task is humble, but it is useful ; and the more humble the spirit in which we undertake it, the more surely it will be blessed from above. We do not work for ourselves, we work for other days 5 and if we undertake our task unselfishly, its results will continue for endless ages, even for evermore.”
‘Another primary cause of the inferiority of modern churches, is a mistaken notion of economy, which we shall see is false in principle, and consequently injuri- ous in its effects, at the same time that it entirely fails in its object.
« Give all thou cans’t, high heaven distains the lore Of nicely calculated, less or more.” ‘That is the true principle of economy. No one should counsel expenditure beyond available means 5 but it does not follow that because an humble. and plain church only can be afforded, a staring and hideous barn must be built. In fact, we are aware of several in- stances where those barns have been erected, with high staring walls, low roof and gaping windows, ae much greater expenditure than a true but plain chureh, with characteristic low massive walls, high and bol a roof (the strongest and best, and most suited to ow
- Beclesiologist. February, 1816.
�
