CHU

159

CHU

e hur n f* e nt, should decide the question. In cruciform8 ®ctio 163 Proper location of the tower is over the inter-tj 0rig 0r |, 0 ^ n ave and transept, but in addition to other posi-n °rth ^ odow i n g are satisfactory—at the north end of theth 0l] A an< ^ ^' e sooth end of the south transept. Sometimes,the JL ra " el y * n this country, we find the tower detached fromUr ch, similarly to the campaniles of the continent,in ^ can scarcely be said to be perfect without a spire, andtu re 8 u C , * n which the earlier styles are adopted, this fea-nf - 0u W never be omitted; in the Perpendicular it is not

of

Dee*} if r . eat Cona equence, though even then desirable. Spireslofti er ahva y s be carried up to a great height, although theniad e of e ,|? etter > nor need they be invariably of stone, thoseand th Snn gles are very beautiful objects in rural districts,in Som ° Se c °vered with lead or slates are not to be despised;°f wJn C ° Unties we find both tower and spire constructedthat j n er 'boarding. In passing, we cannot help noticing,S * , ^'cient 1 >f n ^ our m odern churches, the towers have notand jn Jrea( ith, which gives them an appearance of povertybetter U ? reness - We suggest, whether it would not beNation' of re towers are deemed necessary, to lay the foun-Plete u more substantial structure, and to leave it incom-c bur c h_i . tbe requisite funds are provided. Our oldaCcoi >nts U f 613 a i' va ys went to work on this principle, whichaa , f or • tor the single aisle, and many other irregularities,?f a c j lur tan ce, difference of style in the different portions>ri Dl , C '' 'f’bis plan might be carried out with advantagei Ure > bu t e3 ,! nt . da 3:. not only in the larger parts of the struc-t °'Ver ; s a so * n the finishing of details, &c. The plan of thesquare or rectangular, supported at itspassive buttresses, which add greatly to its appear-

ed _ _ ; _ o _

edfcd a ‘ t ot Ut 'frequently a turret, containing a staircase, ~es P e cial] v °?!. e . an gle, which affords a picturesque irregularity,^‘bcularl cariae d U P above the main building; this is

Anr.ii- ^ the Case in Hie Inter stvlea

or,c ha

Vtl oth,

f «sti

>eel,

v estr v . addition which will be required, is the sacristy• > Its neoiit rt « -1.1 l.,. — -iU„-.1- .i _

8 case in the later styles.

• V s Position should be on the north side of thej^ould riev* 11 ' v ^'°b it should communicate by a door: it

8 d|f; onf v er °i' large dimensions or imposing design. This

, y purto this

b,

bp t 0 of a church where a chimney is allowable.

‘ IJcil °>'tn" 11 )? Point we have made scarcely any mention of

c '? a Utif u j ^ nrches, not because we do not think this a

0 f Cllni star l g lln ’ ^ ut rat her because it is ill adapted to present

; t a,l y f 0r - p.‘ . Such a plan is doubtless the most expressive

i, Ooes Christian church, but it is not the most economical;

“6 li,. . ewin • 7 - -

put,

CC° mize space. It is true the cross arms may

U . ® r<i at i n ”* U acc ommodation of worshippers, but not with"

Wern .'convenience - - - -

er P -ruuvenience ; persons placed there will not be asa i 4iff er 6 nT th tlle rest of tlie congregation, they must look• ltar un.Wi Wa y> and not only so, but must be lnd from. thel ’ v fact t le greater portion of the performance of the services;fcvi <h, n ; , ran8 epts were not intended for this purpose, as ise Veh y 1 , re being seldom found any seats in this position,^ eu sa ch are seen, they are mostly subsequenth esi(ie8 all this, the cross form is more expensive

- a, bl(; ( ] U ? tlon ' When funds are ample, transepts may well

ta W, a P«^- n0t ?- tUe! ' wise -

t n - Hi. ~ .

la 0 them A " ese consist of doors and windows, and

they f S e : f 0r , .° ne remark will apply : do not make themiU'cl 1 i t are sel(j 0 * 1 respect to the former, it may be said thatuttc-^ture, not ® a de an important feature in English q 0t oai^ub wi n q Ven ’ n our cathedrals; and as regards the1 'ey .,y are ,, uo ' vs are advantageous on many accounts,VUsw .‘hey _?. , 3 _ ,

put

th e : j"' er the' ey more unassuming than larger ones, butli»\ a *ldin e ? rese nt times—when stained glass through-au,j -j. 18 scarcely to be looked for—by admitting8 amed glass is to be inserted, they require

but a small quantity. A great mistake, in our opinion, isvery generally made in the present day, in allowing toogreat an area for lighting a church, either by making thewindows too numerous, or too large; a glare of light is notdesirable in a church, it interferes with people’s devotion;we want a subdued tone, that “ dim religious light” which wasadmitted of old through the stained windows, and this is tobe procured rather by diminishing than increasing the areaadmitting light. With reference to the position of doors,there should be one small one for the priest in the south sideof the chancel, another at the porch, and a third, generallyspeaking, opposite the last; in transeptal churches, theremay be one at the west end, and another on the west sideof one of the transepts.

We have previously hinted, that it is not at all necessarythat the corresponding parts of the building should be in jevery respect uniform: the same remark holds equally trueas to detail, as it does in respect of the main features ofconstruction ; the windows and other apertures need not beplaced at exactly the same distances apart, nor is it necessarythat the windows on both sides of the church should in everyparticular correspond; a buttress should not be placed betweenevery two windows, or at every corner of the building,merely for the sake of appearance, nor indeed should theybe employed at all, unless requisite. The governing prin-ciple in such matters, should be to use nothing more than iswanted, and place things just where they are required ; ifthis rule were attended to, it would save a vast deal ofunnecessary trouble, and produce in the end a far moresatisfactory, because more natural, appearance. “ How oftendo we see,” says a writer for the Ecclesiological Society,

“ a simple village church, consisting of low and rough stonewalls, surmounted, and almost overwhelmed, by an immenseroof, and pierced with some two or three plain windows,between as many bold irregular buttresses on each side ; orhaving a short massive tower placed at one angle, or in someseemingly accidental position, which nevertheless every oneconfesses to be as picturesque, and beautiful, and church-likean edifice as the most critical eye could wish to behold !while a modern design, with all its would-be elegancies oftrim regular buttress, parapet, and pinnacles, would costtwice the money, and will not look like a church after all.Here perhaps one half of the money is laid out first in pro-curing, and then in smoothing and squaring great masses ofstone, or in working some extravagant and incongruous orna-ment ; whereas the small and rude hammer-dressed ashlaror rubble work of the ancient model, has a far better appear-ance, and allows a larger expenditure where it is mostwanted, in the arrangements of the interior.”

This leads us to remark, that the interior should be themain object of consideration, and should never be sacrificedto make way for a showy exterior, although this is toofrequently the case with modern churches; it was far differentwith our ancestors. Of the interior, the chancel is that parton which the architect’s best attention should be given. Theinteriors of our old churches, as we have previously stated,were enriched in the most splendid manner, all the finestproductions of art were lavished upon them, the sculptorand painter vied with each other in their decoration—and whyshould it not be so now ? Surely paintings in fresco wouldbe preferable to yellow-ochre and whitewash, nor do we seeany moral objection to pictorial representations in our churches,there can be no fear of people worshipping pictures now-a-days, the greater fear is for the want, not the excess, ofreverence; they are the books of the unlearned, and servenot only to instruct the ignorant in matters which they wouldnot otherwise know, but also bring before the attention of