-
Articles/Ads
Article THE QUEEN'S CROSS, NORTHAMPTON* ← Page 2 of 4 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Queen's Cross, Northampton*
restore this monument to Queen Eleanor , nearly fallen into ruins by reason of age , in that most auspicious year , 1713 , in which year Anne , the glory of her mighty Britain , the most poAverful avenger of the oppressed , the arbitress of peace and war ; after that Germany had been set free , Belgium made secure by garrisons , the French overthrown iu more than ten battlesbher OAVU
, y and by the arms of her allies , made an end of conquering , and restored peace to Europe , after she had given it freedom . " Now , I respectfully ask Mr . Roberts Avhether that was a period Avhen anything half so chaste and beautiful as the forms and detail of our cross would have
made thoir appearance if the Avorkmen engaged in the restoration had not most carefully copied the sound parts of the original ? I trow not : for , of all periods in the history of art , that Avas , perhaps , tho most unlikely for anything half so beautiful ancl pure iu Gothic art to have emanated fro m the brains of the architects or chisels of the masons . Again , on another tablet was an
inscription of Avhich the following is the translation : — "Again repaired and restored in the second year of King George the Third , ancl of our Lord 1762—N . Baylis . " Now , I think Mr . Roberts will agree Avith me that this was a period equally unlikely Avith the former to have originated design and detail like that of Queen ' s Cross . Thenlastlj " we come to the restorations executed under
, , the joint superintendence of Mr . Blore , the architect , and of the late Northampton historian , George Baker , Esq ., and Miss Baker -, and , concerning these , I have no hesitation , in saying , from personal knowledge , that the most judicious and sacred care was manifested in preserving every particle possible , and every peculiar feature of the detail of the original .
The opinion I have formed from the consideration of these facts , and the conclusion at which I havo arrived , after the most careful examination , is this , that few structures have suffered less in purity and beauty from tbe various restorations to Avhich they may have beeu subjected than has Eleanor ' s Cross at Northampton . I am confirmed in this opinion by Mr . Irvine , Avho kindly
volunteered bis valuable aid , aud Avho has materially assisted me by his persevering diligence in making the survey we have now nearly concluded . Again , in the discussion to Avhich I refer , Mr . Roberts
asserted that the tracery in the tympana of the arches of the lower story of the structure Avas an innovation , and that the depressed ogee member of this tracery was altogether a fabrication . Now , I venture to express an opinion that it can be proved to a demonstration that a great part of the traceiy in question is truly original , aud that the other parts are most faithful copies of the
original . I believe this to be true not only of the tracery in general , but of that feature in particular , so thoroughly condemned by Mr . Roberts ; viz ., tbe depressed ogee member immediately above the shields , and forming the heads of the panels below . I believe this can be proved , not only by tho peculiar character of the stone of the original structurebut bthe jointinof the —an
, y g masonry , evidence , where it can be discovered , at once invaluable and conclusive . Witli respect to the depressed ogee member , of'u'liich Mr . Roberts complained as beinginconsistent ivith the Geometrical period , I can only say that I can point to many similar introductions of it . In a windoAv on tbe south side of the choncel of North Fleet Churchin Kentwe find this featureand quite
, , , as depressed as in the instance before us . We find it also in the chancel cast window of St . Mary ' s Stratford Church , Suffolk ; in the Piscina , Fyfield , Berks , and in many other places IDO numerous to mention . One of the most difficult points to solve connected with the discussion in question is , that of the croAvning member of the cornice of the loAver stage of the structure . Mr .
Roberts declared this cresting to bo altogether an invention of Mr . Blore . Nov , there is no difficulty in proving this statement to be incorrect , inasmuch as I ha \* e here prints , published by the Society of Antiquaries , in
which this member is proved to have existed lonobefore Mr . Blore had anything to do Avith the cross . I am compelled , however , to confess that Ave have had great difficulty in determining Avhether this member is original or not . That greater part of it is comparativel y modern I think there can be uo question ; but Avhether Avhat is new Avas a copy of the original , is not so easil y determinedThere is certainl
. y something so peculiarin the character of the panel-work , or tracery , found , upon this member , that , from a mere cursory view of the subject , one might easily be led to the conclusion that it was altogether an innovation ; but , on strict and close examination , Ave found that some of the quoinsor le stonesof this member to
, ang , appear be parts of the original ; for they are not merely pieces , put on or built into the face of the stone Avork , but actually go right under the buttresses which support the sujuerstructure , and in such a manner that ive can scarcely escape the conclusion that they must have formed part of the original structure . This is especially true Avith respect to the north-west angle . Then , if so , they must
originally have been quite plain , or worked as they now are ; for , if any other kind of tracery or panel work had been worked upon the face of them , surely we should find some traces of it ; for almost of necessity it would shoiv itself in some part or other , unless Ave suppose that the whole member was reduced and refaoed ; and one can scarcely believe that any men , at any time , Avould have
imposed upon themselves the labour of such a work , for no other apparent purpose than that of destruction . But there is positive evidence that it has not been so cut back , for the present face of the cresting is in the precise relative position Avith respect to the cornice below . It may be said , . hoivever , that this cresting , if entirely modern , miht have been placed in its true relative position . I
g grant this ; but Avith respect to the north-Avest angle , to which I have just referred , allow me to say that we found not only that it was in its true relative position , but constructed of the same kind of stone as the original structure ; and has upon its face a portion , though small , of of each of the peculiar features of this very peculiar cresting .
Another argument m support of the opinion that the member in question is part of the original is this , that a somewhat similar and peculiar ornamentation is found as the crowning member of the second story of the structure . NOAV , one can scarcely believe that any architect or workmen would have removed original work in two similar , but separate and distinct , parts of the same
structure , to havo replaced it Avith others ; or that these particular parts should each have been so alike destroyed by the hands of time as to require restoration to tho same extent , or to have involved complete renewal . Moreover , I find in the Cross at Waltham that tbe croivning member of the cornice of the first story of the structure is repeated in the other two storiesandstrange to
; , say , that , although quite different from the corresponding members in the Northampton Cross ; still , like it , it is somewhat inconsistent Avith the the purity of the ofher parts of the structure ; and yet I have never heard this disputed as being part of the original . I quite agree ivith my friend , Sir Henry Dryden , Avhen he says " a portion of stonework , like a sentence
in a book , must be taken with tbe context ; and that , in giving an opinion ou architectural restorations , we should do Avell to look at joints as well as mouldings ; in fact , joints , " he says , " are much more valuable tell-tales than mouldings . " For want of attention to the principle of this suggestionI conceive Mr . Roberts made a great mistakenot
, , only Avith reference to the tracery which we have just been considering , but also in the remarks he made at St . Sepulchre ' s Church . He there stated his belief that thepilliirs on the south side of the nave , although square , ivith a simple chamfer , and very different in character from those of the north , Avere , nevertheless , of tho same
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Queen's Cross, Northampton*
restore this monument to Queen Eleanor , nearly fallen into ruins by reason of age , in that most auspicious year , 1713 , in which year Anne , the glory of her mighty Britain , the most poAverful avenger of the oppressed , the arbitress of peace and war ; after that Germany had been set free , Belgium made secure by garrisons , the French overthrown iu more than ten battlesbher OAVU
, y and by the arms of her allies , made an end of conquering , and restored peace to Europe , after she had given it freedom . " Now , I respectfully ask Mr . Roberts Avhether that was a period Avhen anything half so chaste and beautiful as the forms and detail of our cross would have
made thoir appearance if the Avorkmen engaged in the restoration had not most carefully copied the sound parts of the original ? I trow not : for , of all periods in the history of art , that Avas , perhaps , tho most unlikely for anything half so beautiful ancl pure iu Gothic art to have emanated fro m the brains of the architects or chisels of the masons . Again , on another tablet was an
inscription of Avhich the following is the translation : — "Again repaired and restored in the second year of King George the Third , ancl of our Lord 1762—N . Baylis . " Now , I think Mr . Roberts will agree Avith me that this was a period equally unlikely Avith the former to have originated design and detail like that of Queen ' s Cross . Thenlastlj " we come to the restorations executed under
, , the joint superintendence of Mr . Blore , the architect , and of the late Northampton historian , George Baker , Esq ., and Miss Baker -, and , concerning these , I have no hesitation , in saying , from personal knowledge , that the most judicious and sacred care was manifested in preserving every particle possible , and every peculiar feature of the detail of the original .
The opinion I have formed from the consideration of these facts , and the conclusion at which I havo arrived , after the most careful examination , is this , that few structures have suffered less in purity and beauty from tbe various restorations to Avhich they may have beeu subjected than has Eleanor ' s Cross at Northampton . I am confirmed in this opinion by Mr . Irvine , Avho kindly
volunteered bis valuable aid , aud Avho has materially assisted me by his persevering diligence in making the survey we have now nearly concluded . Again , in the discussion to Avhich I refer , Mr . Roberts
asserted that the tracery in the tympana of the arches of the lower story of the structure Avas an innovation , and that the depressed ogee member of this tracery was altogether a fabrication . Now , I venture to express an opinion that it can be proved to a demonstration that a great part of the traceiy in question is truly original , aud that the other parts are most faithful copies of the
original . I believe this to be true not only of the tracery in general , but of that feature in particular , so thoroughly condemned by Mr . Roberts ; viz ., tbe depressed ogee member immediately above the shields , and forming the heads of the panels below . I believe this can be proved , not only by tho peculiar character of the stone of the original structurebut bthe jointinof the —an
, y g masonry , evidence , where it can be discovered , at once invaluable and conclusive . Witli respect to the depressed ogee member , of'u'liich Mr . Roberts complained as beinginconsistent ivith the Geometrical period , I can only say that I can point to many similar introductions of it . In a windoAv on tbe south side of the choncel of North Fleet Churchin Kentwe find this featureand quite
, , , as depressed as in the instance before us . We find it also in the chancel cast window of St . Mary ' s Stratford Church , Suffolk ; in the Piscina , Fyfield , Berks , and in many other places IDO numerous to mention . One of the most difficult points to solve connected with the discussion in question is , that of the croAvning member of the cornice of the loAver stage of the structure . Mr .
Roberts declared this cresting to bo altogether an invention of Mr . Blore . Nov , there is no difficulty in proving this statement to be incorrect , inasmuch as I ha \* e here prints , published by the Society of Antiquaries , in
which this member is proved to have existed lonobefore Mr . Blore had anything to do Avith the cross . I am compelled , however , to confess that Ave have had great difficulty in determining Avhether this member is original or not . That greater part of it is comparativel y modern I think there can be uo question ; but Avhether Avhat is new Avas a copy of the original , is not so easil y determinedThere is certainl
. y something so peculiarin the character of the panel-work , or tracery , found , upon this member , that , from a mere cursory view of the subject , one might easily be led to the conclusion that it was altogether an innovation ; but , on strict and close examination , Ave found that some of the quoinsor le stonesof this member to
, ang , appear be parts of the original ; for they are not merely pieces , put on or built into the face of the stone Avork , but actually go right under the buttresses which support the sujuerstructure , and in such a manner that ive can scarcely escape the conclusion that they must have formed part of the original structure . This is especially true Avith respect to the north-west angle . Then , if so , they must
originally have been quite plain , or worked as they now are ; for , if any other kind of tracery or panel work had been worked upon the face of them , surely we should find some traces of it ; for almost of necessity it would shoiv itself in some part or other , unless Ave suppose that the whole member was reduced and refaoed ; and one can scarcely believe that any men , at any time , Avould have
imposed upon themselves the labour of such a work , for no other apparent purpose than that of destruction . But there is positive evidence that it has not been so cut back , for the present face of the cresting is in the precise relative position Avith respect to the cornice below . It may be said , . hoivever , that this cresting , if entirely modern , miht have been placed in its true relative position . I
g grant this ; but Avith respect to the north-Avest angle , to which I have just referred , allow me to say that we found not only that it was in its true relative position , but constructed of the same kind of stone as the original structure ; and has upon its face a portion , though small , of of each of the peculiar features of this very peculiar cresting .
Another argument m support of the opinion that the member in question is part of the original is this , that a somewhat similar and peculiar ornamentation is found as the crowning member of the second story of the structure . NOAV , one can scarcely believe that any architect or workmen would have removed original work in two similar , but separate and distinct , parts of the same
structure , to havo replaced it Avith others ; or that these particular parts should each have been so alike destroyed by the hands of time as to require restoration to tho same extent , or to have involved complete renewal . Moreover , I find in the Cross at Waltham that tbe croivning member of the cornice of the first story of the structure is repeated in the other two storiesandstrange to
; , say , that , although quite different from the corresponding members in the Northampton Cross ; still , like it , it is somewhat inconsistent Avith the the purity of the ofher parts of the structure ; and yet I have never heard this disputed as being part of the original . I quite agree ivith my friend , Sir Henry Dryden , Avhen he says " a portion of stonework , like a sentence
in a book , must be taken with tbe context ; and that , in giving an opinion ou architectural restorations , we should do Avell to look at joints as well as mouldings ; in fact , joints , " he says , " are much more valuable tell-tales than mouldings . " For want of attention to the principle of this suggestionI conceive Mr . Roberts made a great mistakenot
, , only Avith reference to the tracery which we have just been considering , but also in the remarks he made at St . Sepulchre ' s Church . He there stated his belief that thepilliirs on the south side of the nave , although square , ivith a simple chamfer , and very different in character from those of the north , Avere , nevertheless , of tho same