Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

Before the great façade, he recommends, if possible, that there should be a cloistered courtyard or atrium, similar to that of St. Ambrogio at Milan, or to the colonnade before St. Peter's at Rome; or if not, a porch or vestibule of equal length to the width of the church, similar to that of Peterborough Cathedral, or to the vestibule of St. Peter's. If this also is too expensive, at least a square porch, supported on two columns; examples of which may be found in almost every town in Italy, and which in France has given rise to those deeply recessed doorways which are so grand a feature in the French churches, and which are so much missed in the west fronts of most of our English cathedrals.

The roof next claims the attention of St. Charles; and after giving several directions full of plain practical common sense for this important member, he turns to the pavement, concerning which he gives one rule which we beg to submit to the earnest consideration of our architects and tile-manufacturers: "In the pavement, of whatever material it be, no cross is to be either sculptured or painted; nor, indeed, any other holy image or scene, nor any type of any sacred mystery." We ourselves have more than once been offended by having to trample on crosses, on the emblem of the Agnus Dei, and on the IHS, the sign of the Holy Name. It does not require any unusual refinement of feeling to see the enormity of this abuse.

The doors of the church St. Charles considers should be always square-headed, as is nearly invariably the case in the great portals of the foreign churches; not too low, but at least twice as high as they are wide, with the space between their architrave and that of the surrounding arch filled in with sacred sculpture or painting. There should be one such door at the end of each nave (or aisle); but they should always be uneven in number-one, three, or five. He recommends that the pillars of these doors should rest upon lions, according to the Lombard custom; and also that there should be no other public doors into the church besides those of the principal façade. He only allows side-doors which lead to the sacristy, or tower, or cemetery, or houses of the ecclesiastics; and no such side-door is to be in front of or near to an altar.

Church-windows should be arched, and should be wider inside than outside. The clerestory windows should be in uneven numbers, as near the roof as possible, and always directly over the centre of the arch. There should be always a large rose window over the principal door, like an eye in the forehead of the church. The windows of the lateral façades may be oblong. The altars should be lighted from

both sides, never, except from necessity, from behind. And then every care must be taken that the back window does not in the least interfere with the altar: it must not be right behind the altar, nor in any way over it. Or if necessity compels such a position of the window, then the builder must take care to make it perfectly water-tight.

All windows must be made so high from the ground that persons cannot look in through them from without. In old churches, where the ground has risen, such windows should be glazed with opaque glass.

All steps up to the church should be in uneven number. The chancel should be opposite the chief door, and should face due east, except where the priest says Mass with his face to the people, as in the Roman Basilicas. It should be vaulted with stone, adorned with mosaic or painting, and be raised one, three, five, or (if there is a crypt beneath) more steps above the pavement of the rest of the church.

Then follow very minute rules for the high altar, its isolation from the wall, and the space that is to be left for the performance of the ceremonies. Gothic architects would do well to study the dimensions which St. Charles lays down for the altar-steps, and for the bradella, or platform, which ought to surround the altar on three sides, as is required, for instance, for the position of the deacon while the priest is reading the Gospel, and at other times. Over the entrance of the chancel, especially in parish-churches, either over or under the chancelarch, he requires a rood or crucifix to be set up. The choir, with seats for the clergy, to be either in front of or behind the altar.

In the same practical spirit St. Charles gives detailed directions about the structure of the tabernacle (on which he allows a crucifix or other image of our Lord to be placed), about the chapels and lesser altars, about the capo-cielo or canopy over the altar when the roof of the church is too lofty to admit of being frequently cleaned, and all the fixtures which are required for the Holy Sacrifice. A chapter is devoted to the places and ostensoirs in which the sacred relics are to be kept; another to the images and pictures: one rule in this chapter is, that no face of a saint is to be a portrait any other man, living or dead. All saints are to be distinguished by the corona or nimbus, which is to be inscribed with a cross for our Lord. And no painting is to be made on the floor, on damp walls, or under windows. The ornamental paintings and arabesques are not to contain monstrous figures, or birds, or landscapes, except those which are required by the subject represented. Next follows a chapter on lamps, of

of

which St. Charles supposes that there will be always a considerable number, five or seven, hanging from a beam before the Blessed Sacrament. The baptistery, the pulpits, confessionals, bell-tower, cemetery, sacristy, and all other parts of the church, are considered in a luminous and complete manner.

The second portion of the work treats of a subject that has been even less studied, namely, the furniture of a church. In this St. Charles gives the most precise instructions concerning every utensil that is required for the divine service; and these instructions are not of his own invention, he was not the legislator who established these rules; they are essentially the traditional laws, which he does but hand down, as a faithful witness, from former ages.

It must be remembered also, as M. Van Drival well observes, that these books were composed at a time of solemn and universal reformation, at the time when the Council of Trent was sitting. They are not a treatise on Christian art, but a legislative definition of the object of Christian art. They do not enter into the question of the peculiar fitness of the several styles of architecture; they simply indicate the end which every church-builder and furnisher, whether he be Gothic or Italian, should propose to himself.

Without a well-defined object of this kind, the ecclesiastical architect begins at the wrong end. He has a notion of something which he thinks would look pretty, or grand, or mysterious; and he builds it, without a thought for the requirements of the service or the convenience of the ministers. And when this perfect bijou is at last opened for service, the faithful are disgusted to find an organ-loft in which it is impossible to arrange the singers so that they can see the conductor; an altar, the steps of which are so narrow that the priest is in danger of falling when he goes up or down them; a bradella of such scanty dimensions, that the priest, deacon, and subdeacon cannot find room to stand; a glaring window over the altar, that dazzles the eyes, darkens the lights, and lets the water run down the reredos; a nave so narrow, that it looks crushed up; and narrower aisles, in which no one can either see or hear. When such a thing happens, every one understands at once that the architect's main object was not to build a temple for God, a house in which His service might be performed most easily, in accordance with the rules and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, but to embody a conceit, and to exemplify his own private notion of the beautiful, or the pretty, or the fitting. The architect who wishes to avoid this charge of egoism will take care to make himself acquainted with the object he is to set before him from a book

which carries so much weight and legislative authority as this small volume of St. Charles Borromeo.

In saying this, we do not tie up the hands of any architect; on the contrary, the artist has the most real freedom when his object is most clearly set before him. He has a double task to perform, when he has to determine both his object and the means to be used in attaining it. Besides, it is not within the architect's province to determine what is requisite for the service of the Church. His sphere commences only after the ecclesiastical authority has clearly defined what is required. Then, given this general plan, the architect has to construct upon it his building, and to incrust his walls and roof with decorations. This is the true province of the master-builder; and he is the most perfect master who knows most perfectly the limits of his authority.

Another benefit would result from the general adoption of this code of rules. Our churches would be more easily distinguishable from the Gothic restorations which Protestants are every where making around us. From the partial summary which we have given, our readers will be able to see that the rules collected by St. Charles were, on the whole, followed in this country till the rise of the second period of Gothic architecture. In this later style we find few buildings with apsidal terminations (to avoid the east window), with west porches and rose window, such as we find in many Norman and Early Pointed buildings in England, and almost universally in churches of that date in France. The architects of the Decorated period, who have been so implicitly followed by modern architects, began to neglect the ancient rules; and our national conception of Gothic is founded rather upon their fanciful innovations than on the ancient and universally applicable laws which St. Charles prescribes. A return to the ancient plan would simplify our architecture, would purify our taste, would assimilate our churches to those of our continental brethren in the faith, and would distinguish them from the temples of Protestantism. At the same time, it would not interfere with the details or with the progress of Gothic art, but would, on the contrary, inspire it with a new life, by giving it a purpose, and furnishing it with a rule for its internal development. The late church of St. Germain l'Auxerrois at Paris is as good an example of a construction according to rule as any earlier specimen that can be adduced.

It only remains to say a word on the present edition of this book. M. Van Drival has given the Latin text of St. Charles without any translation; the meaning is always so clear, that no explanatory notes have been found necessary;

and the editor has confined himself to indicating other works in which further details may be found, and to calling particular attention to those passages which he considered to be most important, or which confirm the conclusions of modern archæology. A glossary of a few of the rarer architectural terms is added at the end.

As this book does not enter into the subject of architecture, so neither does it touch on the symbolic meaning of the parts of the church, which has been discussed by Durandus of Mende. Its character is simply preliminary and practical. It is a guide for the priest who employs the architect, even more than for the architect himself. Such being the case, we hope that a work so valuable, so easy, so small, and so cheap, will not be neglected by our English Catholic church-builders. For ourselves, we heartily thank the learned abbé for having rescued from oblivion so practical and so interesting a little book.

THE ANGLICAN CANON.-WORDSWORTH AND LEE. 1. On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture; or, on the Canon of the Old and New Testament. By Chr. Wordsworth, D.D. London: Rivingtons.

2. The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, its Nature and Proof. By William Lee, M.A. Rivingtons.

3. A General Introduction to the Sacred Scripture. By the Most Rev. Joseph Dixon, Primate of Ireland. In two vols. Dublin: Duffy.

4. Prælectiones Theologica de Sacr. Libr. Can. et Auctor. Pars secunda, de Verbo Dei scripto et tradito. Tom. ii. S. Perrone, S.J. Parisiis: Migne.

(Second article.)

IN a late number we examined the evidence of the Jewish writers-Philo, Josephus, and the Talmudists-and the decrees of synods from the apostolic age down to the last great Council of Trent, without discovering in either one testimony bearing out the canon of the Church of England. We now resume the subject, and examine into the last external source of proof-the authority of the early Fathers, taking care to `notice every extract quoted by Mr. Wordsworth.

The earliest Father to whom reference is made is St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis in Lydia, A.D. 161-180:

"Melito to brother Onesimus, greeting: Since you have often, out of zeal for the word, asked me to make selections for you from

« ПредишнаНапред »