Volltext Seite (XML)
90 THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT’S JOURNAL. [April 1, 1868. ney added to it, and other domestic alterations made. He sup posed this church had been built in the 11th or 12th century, and in the 14th century a new chancel arch had been added in the pointed style, and the sacristy (as he supposed) built at the west end. The chapel of Linton consisted of a nave and chancel. The nave measured 18 feet by 13 feet 7 inches inside. The entrance to the church was in the south walls. This was rather singular, as in most churches of this class the entrance was in the west end. In other respects this church was a repetition of Wyre, only on a smaller scale. The chancel was 7 feet 6 inches by 7 feet inside. The church of Egilsey was built on a small island, and had been dedicated to St. Magnus. This church was in a com paratively good state of preservation, having been used as a place of worship within the last fifty years. The ground plan of this building seemed to show that it had been built in a cer tain architectural proportion. If four circles were laid down, the first would contain the tower, the second and third fill the inside of the nave, and the fourth include the chancel. The doorways had round arched heads. There was only one original window on each side of the nave. These had the jambs splayed inwards, but it was to be observed that there was no chamfer on the external edge of the jambs. This peculiarity was also to be noticed on many of the Irish churches. These windows were not originally glazed, but were probably fitted with a wooden frame 'with parchment stretched over it. This church had a very large circular tower attached to it of 15 feet exterior diameter. The extreme exterior length of the church was 62 feet 5 in. Various considerations induced him (Sir Henry) to think that the church was built soon after 998. He now came to the churches of Shetland. The church of Culbinsbrough, in Bressay, had originally consisted of a nave, north and south transepts, and chancel. It was the only church in the form of a cross in Orkney or Shetland. There remained only the lower portion of the chancel and of the N. transept, a fragment of the S. transept, and traces of the nave. The nave appears to have been 21 feet 6 in. by 10 feet inside. The N. transept 12 feet N. and S. by 8 feet 6 inches inside, and the chancel 6 feet E. and W. by 10 feet N. and inside. It was probable that the eaves of the whole church were not more than seven or eight feet high. Probably there were no arches at the cross. The sill of the E. window appears to have been 4 feet 7 in. above the ground. The top is gone. The N. window of the transepts was 1 foot 9 in. by 1 foot 3 in., and at about the same height as the E. window. It had square lintels. A singular gravestone (now in the Antiquarian Mu- sem at Edinburgh) was said to have been found at this church. He produced drawings of this remarkable relic. The carvings were in low relief, showing a beautiful interlaced cross with figures of bishops and some nondescript animals at the base. The next to which he referred was the church of The Ness in Yell. This was one of the cases where a bushel of lime would have saved a building. It had been in a tolerably complete state with the exception of a crack in the chancel arch. No effort was made to preserve the building, and the consequence was that about a year ago the arch fell. The nave measured 20 feet 5 in. by 14 feet 10 in. inside. There were two doorways (W. and S.) to the nave, with flat heads, and both were evi dently original. There was a small flat-headed window in the S. wall of the nave, a similar one in the N. wall, and another over the W. doorway. The chancel was 13 feet by 11 feet 3 in. inside. There was one small window in the W. wall of chancel and two in the S. wall. As in some other cases the window jambs were not chamfered. This was the only church in the island which had a sedile. From these detailed illustrations a few general facts might be deduced. There were no cross-shaped churches in Orkney, and there was only one in Shetland. Two of those described had no chancels; the rest had very decided chancels. Doors were chiefly at the west ends. There were some excessively narrow chancel arches. Some windows had circular heads and some flat lentels. This difference formed no criterion as to the date of a building. There was no instance of a double light window. Several churches had no east window, which was the more remarkable, as early Irish churches usually had them. There was no instance of a step to the chancel. There was no case of a platform to the altar except an inserted step at Birsey. Chancel windows were usually excessively low. To show how little appear ances could be trusted in fixing the date of a building, he referred to St. Apolline’s Chapel, in Guernsey. This church had a stone roof and vault in one, a square-headed single light in the east end, another in each side, and a plain semi-circular headed doorway in each side. It was described in Cambridge Camden Society's transactions, and supposed to be of the 8th or 9th century, and from the style of the building it certainly appeared to be of about that date. But documentary evidence had been produced, showing that it was not built till j ust pre vious to 1394. There were four styles of gravestones among these Orcadian ruins. A very common shape was a keel-shaped slab placed over the grave. A second was an upright stone, with a cross engraved upon it. The third was plain, and a fourth was an upright stone cut into the form of a cross, but without any ornamentation. The coffins, which had been found in these parts, were formed of six smooth slabs of stone. Wood did not appear to have been used at all for this purpose. He then touched upon the question of proportion in archi tecture. He did not think that the proportions of buildings were fixed at random. He had made some attempts to discover if any principles of proportion had been followed in the con struction of these Orcadian churches, and he thought with con siderable success. The proportions appeared to have been on geometrical, not arithmetical principles. They must have been fixed with the compasses, not by numbers. He then gave the geometrical formulae on which he considered the churches had been built, but said that it required to be applied with some flexibility, as, in some cases, the side walls were included and sometimes excluded. Sometimes the rule had to be applied one way to the nave, and another way to the chancel. He referred to papers by Mr. White “ On Proportion.” Mr. White referred to a singular fact in connection with the church at Ecclesay, which he had visited some years since. It was at that time stated that thirty-five or forty feet had been taken off the tower, there was still remaining about fifty feet, so that the tower must have been originally eighty or ninety feet high. This must have been a re markable tower for a church of such comparatively small dimensions. With regard to the building added to the west end of one of the churches (Enhallow), he remembered a similar addition in the case of a mediaeval church at Wiggington, near Tring, and he presumed in both instances they must have been sacristies. The flat door jambs to which Sir Henry Dryden had referred, were also remarkable. He knew a case of an old Norwegian doorway, carved in flat timber work, evidently to place against such an entrance. This doorway was now in the South Kensington Museum. Such a form originating in a country where wood was abundant, might naturally be reproduced in stone work in islands peopled by the same race, but where timber was scarcely to be obtained. The blocking up of the apse at Busay, was an example of the prejudice which existed in the 12th century against the old Norman apses, many of which where taken down and rebuilt. On the question of proportion, it seemed to him that many of these churches were almost accurately two squares in the interior, as in some of the Norman churches there were three squares. It was not to be expected that in these rude times there would be the same minuteness and accuracy in the developement of a system of proportion such as it appeared was earned out at a later date. The President thought the question of proportion could scarcely be applied to buildings of such early date and primitive form as these. The buildings shewed so little necessity for careful proportion, that any system which might be extracted out of them would be purely imagi- nary. It reminded him of the overstrained and fanciful interpretation which Professor Piazzi Smythe had put upon the proportions of the Egyptian pyramids. With reference to Sir Henry Dryden’s opening remarks, he hoped that the members would show that they did not bear any ill-will to amateurs. It was mainly due to them that the principles of Gothic art had been so seriously studied by the profes sion. The only fear was, that archaeologists having so much more time at their disposal, would outstrip architects in knowledge of the archi tecture of the past. SCHOOLS OF ART AT EPHESUS.* By Mr. Hyde Clarke. In the author’s opinion the neighbourhood of Ephesus pre sented the appearances of pre-historic occupation. Graves and remains had been found on the railway below the recent formations, but had not been properly examined. The cliffs west of Ephesus are particularly deserving of investigation, as they are of the class in which rock-cut pictures are found, as * Delivered before the Society for the Encouragement of the Fine Arts.
