Volltext Seite (XML)
THE RUINED CHURCHES OF ORKNEY AND SHETLAND* By Sir Henry Dryden. Sir H. Dryden commenced by remarking that there were four ways of estimating old churches, or rather four classes of people who had each their peculiar method of estimating them. The first was the ecclesiastical class, composed of people who said they did not care whether a church was old or new. What they wanted was a building fit for public worship. Utility was the first object with them, and they were utterly regardless of any historic associations which might be connected with the structure. They desired it to be as handsome as possible, but the most important point with them was the merely utilitarian aspect of the case. The second class of people were the artistic gentlemen. They also cared nothing about the antiquity of the building. But utility was not the first object with them. What they wanted was beauty. They desired a building to be picturesque. They were ready at all times to sacrifice historic associations to beauty. The third class of people were the antiquarians. They insisted that no change whatever ought to be made in an edifice. The interior of a church might be dark and gloomy, and incon venient for worship, but the antiquarian would peremptorily forbid a new window being opened in the wall. “You must add nothing, you must subtract nothing,” he will say, “ this building is part of the history of the country; it must not be tampered with but must be preserved intact,” The fourth class comprised people who agreed with the antiquarians in saying that a build ing must not be destroyed because it was part of the history of the country. They objected also to such additions being made to a building as would tend to confuse its historic testimony. Such additions they considered equivalent to putting new noses or limbs on the Elgin marbles. But they were willing that ancient churches should be fitted as far as possible for the objects of public worship, and that the picturesque should not be neglected if it could be obtained without the sacrifice of the peculiar characteristics of the building. But they strongly objected to the destructive spirit. If an old building were pulled down you destroyed that which no time, no effort, no money could replace. He considered that he belonged to this latter class. The architect could more easily design a new church than restore an old one. It required a vast deal more of thought, study and research to discover the original archi tect’s idea and reproduce it than to sit down in one’s study and design a new edifice. In restorations, therefore, architects had not been scrupulous in retaining old work or in endeavouring to obtain an exact reproducion of the original edifice. The con sequence was that during the last thirty years more churches had been destroyed than there had been from the time of the Reformation downwards. He considered that the peculiar work of amateur architects was the preservation of the architectural remains of the country. This led him to the especial subject for the evening, namely, the ruined churches of Orkney and Shetland. The former group was about sixty miles long, and contained about 30,000 people, the latter about seventy miles long, with the same popu lation. He entitled his paper “ The Ruined Churches,” because all the churches of ante-Reformation date in those islands were ruined except the cathedral, which he was not going to describe that evening. As these islands were not united to Scotland till 1468, it had to be borne in mind that the buildings to which he would refer were either of a Norwegian or Irish origin. Un fortunately from the Reformation to the present day, it had been the custom for owners of these buildings to destroy or mutilate them, or suffer them to be destroyed or mutilated. Very frequently a bushel of lime and a mason’s labour for a few hours would have sufficed to preserve a church from ruin, but the expense was grudged, and the building succumbed to the destroying influences of men, time, and weather. If it were asserted that these churches were not worthy of preser vation because there was no documentary evidence in con nection with them, the same objection would apply to many of the parish churches of England. Or if, on the other hand, it were alleged that there was no beauty in them to make their preservation a question of importance, the same might be said about the coronation stone at Westminster Abbey. The in terest of these Orcadian churches did not depend upon docu- ♦ Delivered before the Architectural Association. mentary evidence or upon their intrinsic merits as works of art, but upon the fact that they were relics of the by-past history of our country and of architecture, and he who denied their value denied the value of all history. The first church he had to call attention to was in Kirkwall, that of St. Olaf, the great war riorsaint of Norway, who attained his saintship by the slaughter of a thousand of his countrymen. The church of St. Olaf is a parallellogram 35 feet by 18 inside. The original entrance was on the south side and was three feet 5 in. wide, having a semi circular arch and continuous moulding. The use of the semi circular arch extended in Scotland from the earliest to the latest times, and was no criterion of the date of a building. This church was probably built by Bishop Reid, who held the see in the sixteenth century. The next church was that of Orphir. It had consisted origi nally of a circular nave and apsidal chancel. It was worthy of remark that there were only six circular churches of ancient date in Great Britain, this at Orphir being one. It was stated in 1758 to have measured 22 feet in diameter, and to have been 61 feet above ground. The existing portion shewed the former measure to be nearly correct. The latter measure was probably wrong. By comparison of dates, it was built between 1090 and 1160. The chapel on the Brough of Deerness was an example of the affection of the early ecclesiastics for isolated or secluded sites for their oratories. This chapel was 24 feet 5 inches by 17 feet 4 inches outside. Round the chapel are foundations of many huts, once the shelters for the pilgrims, who came here to do their devotions. The church on the Brough of Birsey measured 57 feet by 21 feet 3 inches outside. The interior was filled with debris to a depth of 2 feet above the proper floor. The nave was 28 feet 3 inches by 15 feet 6 inches inside. The doorway was in the west end, having parallel jambs. There was no appearance of there having been a wooden framework at the entrance. The question thus arose, had there been a door in this doorway, and, if so, how had it been hung 1 In many cottages in Shet land a hide used to be hung over the doorway, and the door to this church may have been of this character. Another suppo sition was that the door might have been hung on iron staples fixed on the inner side of the wall. In this church were to be noticed the remains of what must have been circular staircases, 5 feet 6 inches in diameter at the S.E. and N.E. angles of the nave. The walls inclosing these on the west were gone, having, as he supposed, been pulled away to get the stairsteps out. It had been supposed that they led to a roodloft or priests’ room. Did they support turrets ? McCorma’s chapel at Cashel has turrets in nearly the same position. If the west wall of the staircases existed, as he supposed, the chancel arch would have been 7 feet from west to east. A singular feature of this building was the extreme narrow ness of the chancel arch, it measuring only 4 feet 3 inches wide. The chancel itself only measured 10 feet 9 inches from east to west, by 10 feet 3 inches inside. The window splays were equal externally and internally. Originally, no elevation had been given to the altar, but in later times a reredos had been built which blocked up the apse altogether and the altar placed on steps. The date of this building he fixed at about 1100. The church at Wyre next called for attention. It was built of grey whinstones. It measured 35 feet 10 inches long by 18 feet 4 inches wide outside. The nave measured 19 feet 2 inches by 12 feet 2 inches inside. The chancel 7 feet 10 inches by 7 feet 2 inches inside. The entrance measured 2 feet 6 inches wide, having an arched head. It was a peculiarity of these churches that the arches did not spring flush with the jamb, but were set about three inches back. This might have been done in order to make the wall support the wooden framework round which the arch was to be built. The date of this building he conjectured to be about the 12th or 13th century. The church of Enhallow measured 52 feet 8 inches long by 23 feet 4 inches wide outside. At the west end, entered from the nave by a round headed doorway, were the remains of a building measuring 7 feet 9 inches by 7 feet 5 inches. It was in the position of a tower, but as the walls were not thick it could scarcely have had strength to support such a mass of stonework. He presumed it must have been the sacristy. There were two doorways to the church, both with flat lintels. The existence of this church had been unknown for many years, having been converted into a cottage, and a fireplace and chim-