Volltext Seite (XML)
THE ARCHITECTURE OF LIVERPOOL. By a Stranger. Not deeming myself bound to continue these remarks according to any fixed rule, I shall merely note each of the “ Architecture of Liver pool” as comes first in my way, during my peregrinations through the town, without regard to their proximity to each other or even their re lative importance. I shall, therefore, now turn my face towards the place where the wise men of old came from, namely, the east, and make a few remarks on the Railway Station. This is a mere screen, "little better than a blank wall, hiding, instead of setting off, the great works that are going on behind it. It is a long, low, flat facade, broken into many unmeaning parts, without end or aim, having six and thirty engaged columns very nearly in a line, like a regiment of soldiers leaning against a wall, set upon pedestals, and supporting an entablature, and over the centre and side entrances having heavy masses of stone-work. This station is a great failure. Instead of being a grand substantial gateway, suitable to the commercial dignity of this great town, and the incalculable importance to mercantile men of railway transit,—instead of an entrance suitable in height and dig nity to so important an object, which, by its outward appearance, should tell of the great things going on behind it, and thus serve as a title page to its contents, here is a long, low wall, ornamented, it is true, with columns, &c., but still giving no one any idea, by its outward expression, of its nature or intents. Every edifice should express its object. A church should display gravity and dignity, a theatre light ness and gaiety, a prison rude majesty and sturdy strength ; in short, every edifice should, like the countenance, express the spirit. But, in this erection, besides this want of expression for the intended ob ject, the thing is not good in itself. The expression of a column is that of support to something superincumbent. But what do these support? Why, they are themselves stuck against a wall where they are not required, for, we naturally suppose, a wall can support itself; and over them is an entablature, which might, also, have been sup ported by the said wall. Moreover, this entablature is in itself but in different, and it is broken into petty parts, wanting that continuity of outline so necessary in large edifices for effect and dignity; and all this is to no useful purpose, but merely to hide the railway. How much better would it have been to have made these now useless columns available, and placed them at the outside of the pathway, thus form ing a colonnade, for shelter from sun and rain, with bold but unbroken entablatures; and, in the centre, made a very large and handsome gateway, worthy of the town, somewhat similar in style to those of Birmingham and London, albeit they are not quite faultless. But I must, in justice, add, that the columns are well wrought and propor tionate, the mouldings good, and the basement and pedestals bold, substantial, and somewhat original. One of the most important architectural edifices in the town, as well from its size and prominent position as from its cost, is Saint Luke’s Church, which crowns the summit of a gentle ascent, and forms a beautiful termination to the view at the south-east end of Bold-street. It is one of the finest and most picturesque buildings of its kind in the county. This has been a most successful attempt at the opprobriously termed Gothic, a name sarcastically applied to the sublime architec ture of the middle ages, by Sir Christopher Wren, whose own taste less attempts in that style show how little he understood the artist like feelings or the grand conceptions that enabled the monastic archi tects to raise edifices remarkable for boldness, scientific construction, and that fascinating and almost magical effect of chequered light and shade, which, combining, at times, the most playful effects, as in their small oratories and chapels, and, at others, the most sublime and ele vating, raising the feelings of the devout, and appalling even the infi del, produced architectural effects that have not been equalled even in the present day of knowledge and enlightenment. St. Luke’s Church consists of a nave, chancel, and tower. The details of the exterior of this church are exceedingly good, and show that the architect had a chaste appreciation of that style. The windows, battlements, but tresses, pinnacles, &c. are almost all unexceptionable, which, with the admirable tone of colour in the stone, produce a very fine effect. The chancel is a copy of the Beauchamp Chapel, at Warwick. This chan cel, though beautiful enough in itself, looks sadly likely an excrescence or after-thought, tacked on to the main building, which idea is still further kept up by the difference of style, which is of later date than that of the nave. Why should this have been done in a modern edi fice? Why, in an edifice built at the same period, combine the incon gruous styles of several periods? for, in the Gothic style, there are many eras, each characterized by certain distinct features essentially different from all the rest; and thus the antiquary may trace the date of erection of almost any ancient building to within a very few years. It may be replied, that there are remains of many buildings of different styles. True. But the reason is, that they were built at different periods, each in accordance with the style of its own date, thus creat ing a great jumble of styles, often picturesque, but rarely chaste or coirect, or forming one homogenous mass. Nor can any one produce a single ancient edifice built at the same period but in different styles. Thus we plainly see, that this mixing of styles is neither in accordance with reason nor the beautiful examples of antiquity now remaining unto us. The tower of this church is square, with turrets at each angle running up, and finishing with small battlements. The lower part contains a deeply-recessed doorway, with bold shafts and mould ings. Above is a “perpendicular" window, which is semewhat dis proportionately short. The clock, in the centre of a row of panelling, comes next, and then the belfry-window, of decorated character, being filled with flowing tracery. The upper part of the tower is finished with a profusion of graceful panelling, and terminated with perforated battlements of chaste design. The whole is exquisitely beautiful and picturesque; nor do I know any modern tower which has so fine an effect as this. Whether the sun shines broadly over its top, as it stands boldly out against the clear distant blue of the sky, or clouds chequer the face, the effect is equally beautiful, combining fair pro portions with the chastest details. But there is, I think, one ana chronism that, to an antiquarian eye, mars the whole : it is like the mole upon the fair face of some otherwise exquisitely beautiful girl. The lower window is of about the date of 1450, that of the upper one about 1370, and is copied, I suspect, from one in Worstead Church, Norfolk. Therefore, even if the tower were built to imitate different periods, which I can hardly imagine, they have placed the oldest style upon the top of the more modern one; so that an Irishman might blunder upon the idea, that they had commenced building at the top, and gradually travelled down to modern times. One has heard of “building castles in the air:” surely the architect of this edifice in tended to illustrate the saying. The ground on which this edifice is built being much higher at one end than the other, the architect, by way of obtaining a level, has constructed a large and handsome flight of steps, though somewhat too high, at one end, occupying the whole width of the edifice. This gets over the difficulty ; but, although this may be a beauty to a Grecian temple, which was always placed upon the uppermost of a flight of steps surrounding the building, it is incon sistent with this style of architecture, and but few examples remain of such, except here and there upon the continent. Of the interior, with much that is good, there is much that is indifferent: the details are often excellent in design, but poor in execution, not having sufficient boldness or projection. The cornice from which the roof springs, especially, is much too small, the bases of the piers are miserable, the shafts against the outer wall, supporting the aisle roof, are poor and thin; but yet, with all these defects, in consequence of the excellence of other parts, the absence of that great defect in Gothic architecture, side galleries, and the expense lavished upon the whole, there is an effect produced that is highly pleasing, and renders the tout ensemble of this edifice one of the finest of its kind in this county, if not in the country. The entrance gates are much too small and unimportant, and resemble the upper portions of pinnacles cut oft'and placed there, and are, besides, much too numerous. How much better would have been large, bold, and handsome piers, or arched gateways, than these expensive frittered pieces of gingerbread, which must, altogether, have cost many, many hundred pounds. Few things more strike a stranger’s notice, or give him a better idea of the wealth of this most wealthy town, than the number and excel lence of the banking-houses. To offer remarks upon a very small number would extend these papers too far, but there are two just com pleted that may be worthy of notice, viz., the North and South Wales Bank and the Union Bank. The former is one of the handsomest in the town; but, in criticizing any architectural work, the critic should make himself acquainted with the peculiar circumstances under which the architect was placed, and endeavour to discover what control they exercised over his design. Upon a cursory examination of this bank, it is evident the architect had to contend with difficulties of no mean order, such as his ground being irregular in shape, and, also, the ne cessity of getting sufficient accommodation within a very confined space, thus compelling him to obtain in height what he wanted in superficies; and, yet, here are enormous difficulties overcome, and a handsome edifice, in conclusion, remains. The entrance front consists of a Corinthian portico, in antis ; the columns, which are very rich and handsome, being just disengaged from the wall and set upon pedestals, the whole being surmounted by a pediment, with rich cornice, &c. There are, in the centre, a doorway and two windows, one above the other, but the ornaments of all these are inferior to the rest of the work. The side consists of a row of six pilasters and three tiers of
