Beschreibung

Lizenz

Dieses Werk ist gemeinfrei, weil seine urheberrechtliche Schutzfrist abgelaufen ist. Dies gilt für das Herkunftsland des Werks und alle weiteren Staaten mit einer gesetzlichen Schutzfrist von 100 oder weniger Jahren nach dem Tod des Urhebers. Parallel zu dieser Lizenz muss auch ein Lizenzbaustein für die United States public domain gesetzt werden, um anzuzeigen, dass dieses Werk auch in den Vereinigten Staaten gemeinfrei ist.

Es wurde festgestellt, dass diese Datei frei von bekannten Beschränkungen durch das Urheberrecht ist, alle verbundenen und verwandten Rechte eingeschlossen.

https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse

Transcription

THE “VANDAL RESTORERS” OF ST. PATRICK'S CATHEDRAL.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREEMAN.

Sir—The Freeman's Journal of the 23rd instant having commented upon a communication in the Dublin Builder, signed “J. J. M'Carthy,” and having thereby given to that document an importance which it would not have otherwise possessed, and as we, in our position of contractors for the restoration of the Cathedral, are personally concerned in the truth or falsehood of certain allegations contained in that document, we feel assured that, with the spirit of fair play that has always characterised your journal, you will permit us to, offer some observations in reply. Your able observations having to a great extent anticipated many things which we might not have said so well, we pass at once to those portions of the communication referred to which we are more immediately concerned. Engaged in the restoration of a national monument in which every enlightened person in the community must feel a deep interest, we are far from imagining that what we have done is not fairly open to legitimate criticism “conducted in a candid and unbiassed spirit,” and “keepint truth and consistency ever in view.” We propose shortly to examine how far “truth and consistency” are kept in view in the communication referred to, and we ask those who feel so far interested as to follow our remarks to judge for themselves how far “a candid and unbiassed spirit” or a spirit of a much less creditable nature may have suggested the charges to which we about to refer. Mr. M'Carthy, in paying a well merited eulogium to Mr. Carpenter, laments “how great has been the loss to St. Patrick's that the views of that gifted artist have not been realised;” also, “that works of the last three centuries have been religiously restored in all their hideous deformity, while original and perfect works of the earlier and better period have been ruthlessly destroyed to make way for unauthorised and unnecessary features.” If these charges were well foundedi—in fact if there were even a shadow of foundation for them, we should consider ourselves and all concerned open to the reproach of vulgar barbarism, alike disgraceful to the age and to the country. With an adherence to that “truth and consistency,” which will be further illustrated, Mr. M'Carthy conveniently avoids mentioning a solitary instance where “original and perfect works have been ruthlessly destroyed,” or where “hideous abominations have been religiously restored,” unless we accept as an example what he says of the “side buttresses, imitations of the weakest, worst, and feeblest Tudor architecture, &c.” Now, in reply to these charges, so deliberately and emphatically made, we must as deliberately and emphatically state that the plans for the restorations made by Mr. Carpenter, whom Mr. M'Carthy lauds so highly, that every other person and thing included in his sweeping denunciation may appear blacker by the contrast, have not only been strictly adhered to, but these very buttresses referred to have been built exactly according to one finished under his (MR. Carpenter's) own superintendence. So much for Mr. M'Carthy's “consistency.” Let us now examine into his truth! Professing to give a few examples of “destructions,” and referring to the arcade between the nave and north aisle he says—“These corbel shafts were being removed when I visited the cathedral, and their places supplied by entire shafts of gross proportions and rude details.” Here is, at least, a distinct charge which can be grappled with, and our reply is, that it is simply, absolutely, unequivocally untrue! We invite the inspection of any unbiassed person in order that in this case a judgment may be formed of how far MR. M'Carthy's unsupported assertions may be relied upon. Again he says—“Let us take another example of destruction—what has become of the ancient rood screen?” Passing by the ill-natured sneer which follows this question, we have to remark that Mr. M'Carthy must know only too well that we found no “ancient rood screen” to destroy; the pile of rude masonry which separated the transepts and choir from the nave, and which supported the organ, intercepting the view, was not only not a rood screen, but was not even in the position which a “rood screen” should occupy, as Mr. M'Carthy should have known. The only other really tangible objection we can discover in Mr. M'Carthy's general denunciation of everything is one which, if it had any foundation in fact, would be a very grave one indeed. This refers to the restoration of the nave ceiling, with which you, Sir, have already so ably dealt, quoting Mr. Carpenter's own words in proof, that the present restoration is precisely what he intended, and we have further to add, that the present restoration is the only one possible, having regard to the ancient wall ribs, springers, and spandrils attached to the walls, and which absolutely determined the outline and form of the ancient groins. Mr. M'Carthy says that an “architect of the ecclesiological school” was needed here to set matters right, and he then makes the following remarkable assertion:—“The groining, fortunately for its stability, is executed in lath and plaster, as it certainly would be an impossibility in stone;” and again, that mysterious being, “the architect of the ecclesiological school” is appealed to. Now, Sir, the astounding ignorance of the simplest principles of constructive architecture betrayed by Mr. M'Carthy in this statement acquires an ominous significance when considered in connexion with the history of certain unlucky structures, some of which we may remind him of, viz.—The Dominican Church of St. Saviour, whose columns crumbled with their own weight; that unhappy structure at Irishtown, “the Star of the Sea;” the still more unhappy chapel at Kilskyre, the new church in Derry, whose tower, according to the Dublin Builder, will not only not carry a spire, but must be itself taken down; or the convent chapel at Richmond, whose propped-up walls, held together with iron rods, mournfully illustrate the competency of their architect. It is unnecessary to add to the list. We must, in justice to Mr. M'Carthy, admit that the “Vandal restorers” must plead guilty to one of his charges—they have been guilty of the Vandalism of terminating the gables of the venerable cathedral with the graceful, and still more venerable, Irish cross; but we can easily imagine that Mr. Guinness, whom we do not presume to champion, will await with equanimity the verdict which an enlightened public will pronounce upon the “Vandalism” that suggested the graceful homage to national sentiment contained in the elevation of the symbol of the ancient national faith on the renovated summits of our national cathedral. “Dulness and mediocrity” must bear the blame of this, whilst “genius” alone was capable of slavishly copying a cross from Brandon's book of examples, and placing it on the summit of St. Saviour's in Dominick-street, or of decorating its gable with a poor window from St. Clotilde's in Paris, or adorning its portal with a horrid caricature of the symbol of the Dominicans, when the passers by were amused or disgusted for some days by the spectacle of two dogs in stone, with jaws desperately clenched on something like “mutton bones,” while they grinned in ghastly unity from each side of the doorway. True, they were speedily removed, and many other similar “details” shared their fate, as the funds of the church can testify. Would the late Mr. Pugin, whose last work was the design of this church, have approved of the “judicious eclecticism” which has altered the features and proportions of what he, no doubt, left perfect? Having now disposed of everything like a tangible charge in Mr. M'Carthy's long letter, let us group together a few of his expressions, supported solely by his own personal authority—viz., “May it (the chapter house) long remain a reproach to the perpetrators of the deeds now being done in other parts of the cathedral;” “The present restorers of St. Patrick's are earning for themselves pre-eminent place among the latter” (Vandal restorers); “It needs only to carry into the effect the suggestions of the Freeman's Journal to entitle them (the restorers) to the first place among the former” (Vandal destroyers), also “the lifeless, coarse, and clumsy treatment of these details.” Now, after such a sweeping denunciation, we may be permitted to inquire what is the value of the opinions so dogmatically expressed? Is Mr. M'Carthy a master whose dicta must be received as authority? Does he appear clothed with the authority with which structures built, faultless in proportions and construction, and elegant in detail, would reasonably endow him? Where shall we seek for the source of that authority? Shall we seek for it in the clumsy and absurd incongruities in the addition to the chapel in Whitefriar-street? Shall we seek for it in the “Star of the Sea,” at Irishtown, when the architect, in making a reduced copy of St. George's in London, has with marvellous ingenuity, absolutely succeeded in eliminating from the copy every vestige of the grace of the original? Shall we seek for it in the dismal details of the still more ghastly interior of this melancholy structure? Or rather shall we find it in the new Cathedral of Armagh, designed and almost erected by poor Duff, but since consigned to other hands, which have contrived in its completion with mournful success, to totally invert the order of architectural chronology, placing in juxta position the most jarring and incongruous features, and with a ruthless “eclecticism” for ever obliterating all graces of the harmony and fitness imparted to the original design by its unfortunate author? Or, finally, failing to discover anywhere a shadow of authority for this reckless and indiscriminate abuse, are we not justified in classing it with the logic, not of the “ecclesiological” but of the “fish-fag” school? In conclusion, Sir, as we must look to intelligence of a higher oder than Mr. M'Carthy possesses to understand and appreciate the risks we have encountered and the difficulties we have overcome in the discharge of the duties assigned to us, we shall calmly await the verdict of public opinion relative to the manner in which we have discharged these duties; we shall even invite the criticism of that exquisite creature, the “architect of the ecclesiological school” when he makes his appearance among us, and we shall hail his advent with satisfaction if he shall only exhibit a moderate regard, not for consistency—that might be too much to expect—but for simple truth together with a little knowledge of the elementary principles of the art of which he may dub himself a “professor.”—We are, Sir, your obedient servants, MURPHY and SON.
Amiens-street, Jan. 26, 1863