No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 April 2016
. . . any thing may be done with Gothic architecture, provided it be employed in a Catholic and not in an Antiquarian spirit.
Rambler, VI, new series 1 (1850), p. 321.For Pugin, given his critical perspective on the work of others, the sense of failure in his own less successful designs was especially acute. If the methodology for his recreation of a medieval Christian past was antiquarian, his aspiration was romantic, and the less his modern design matched its medieval model, the more intense he felt its inadequacies. In explanation, in part at least, Pugin identified a lack of concern for the details of his architecture on the part of the clergy, being most vociferous about their indifference in Ireland. In a letter quoted by his biographer Benjamin Ferrey, Pugin, writing in 1850, reported that there was ‘little or no appreciation of ecclesiastical architecture among the clergy’ in Ireland. The new cathedral in Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford, he described as having been ‘completely ruined’, saying that ‘it could hardly have been worse treated if it had fallen into the hands of the Hottentots.’ His explanation for the destruction of his grand designs for churches was both straightforward and scathing: ‘the clergy have not the least idea of using them properly.’
1 Ferrey, Benjamin, Recollections of A. W. N. Pugin and his father Augustus Pugin; With Notices of their Works (London, 1861),p. 125 Google Scholar.
2 For this and the following quotations see the discussion in Eastlake, Charles L., A History of the Gothic Revival (Surrey, 1970 [1872]), pp. 344-51Google Scholar.
3 Ibid., pp. 346-47.
4 The matter of the influence of Rome on the practical aspects of its architecture has received hide attention. For an international perspective see Aubert, Roger et al., The Church in the Industrial Age (London, 1981), pp. 288–306 Google Scholar, which gives an appropriate context to the question and confirms Rome’s limited interest in the matter of architectural style and details. Pugin’s, ‘complete Catholic parish church’ (The Present State of Ecclesiastical Architecture in England (London, 1843), pp. 12–13 Google Scholar) remains one of the most useful summaries of requisite facilities, even if its aesthetic recommendations are less appropriate. The relevance of the writings of S. Charles Borromeo is discussed below. Some modern works have a special bearing on the interests of the nineteenth century, notably Weber, E.J., Catholic Church Buildings (London, 1927)Google Scholar and O’Connell, J., Church Building and Furnishing: The Church’s Way. A Study in Liturgical Law (London, 1955)Google Scholar. The matter is considered intermittendy in Litde, Bryan, Catholic Churches since 1623: A Study of Roman Catholic Churches in England and Wales from Penal Times to the Present Decade (London, 1966), especially p. 132 Google Scholar, and Anson, Peter F., Fashions in Church Furnishings, 1840-1940, 2nd edn (London, 1965 [1960] )Google Scholar.
5 See the discussions in O’Connell, Church Building, especially pp. 28-30 and pp. 41-42. On the Code of Canon Law see for sources Gasparri, Pietro, Codicis juris canonia fontes, 9 vols (Rome, 1923–39)Google Scholar. Useful guides in this area are Trudel, P., A Dictionary of Canon Law (St Louis, 1919)Google Scholar and Rocca, Fernando della, Manual of Canon Law (Milwaukee, 1959)Google Scholar.
6 Aubert, Church in the Industrial Age, p. 289.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Litde, Catholic Churches, p. 132.
10 The editions relevant to the discussion below are van Drivai, E., S. Carlo Borromoei Instructiones Fabricae Ecclesiasticae . . . (Paris, 1855)Google Scholar, and Wigley, George J., S. Charles Borromeo’s Instructions on Ecclesiastical Buildings (London, 1857)Google Scholar, this last being used for quotations. For modern assessments of Borromeo’s treatise see Blunt, Anthony, Artistic Theory in Italy 1410-1600 (Oxford, 1962 [1940]), pp. 127-30Google Scholar, and Voelker, Evelyn Carole, Charles Borromeo’s ‘Instructiones fabricae et sepellectilis ecclesiasticae . . .,’ 157; (doctoral thesis, Syracuse University, 1980)Google Scholar.
11 On this see Seán O’Reilly, ‘Beyond Pugin and Pointed-classical features in the development of an Irish Catholic Ecclesiology’, forthcoming, and the discussion below.
12 Wigley, Borromeo, p. 3.
13 Ibid., p. 18.
14 Ibid., p. 1.
15 Ibid., p. 158.
16 Ibid., p. 3.
17 Ibid., p. 12.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid., pp. 8-9.
20 Ibid., pp. 24-27, et seq.
21 Ibid., pp. 32-35.
22 Ibid., p. 19.
23 Ibid., pp. 18-19.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid., p. 21.
26 Ibid., pp. 13-14.
27 Ibid., p. 22.
28 e.g. ibid., pp. 35 and 37, respectively, ‘chapels . . . may be added to the body of the church, and project externally’, and ‘If. . . the chapels cannot, on account of the narrowness of the site, be constructed that they project completely outside . . . they may be so built... to project externally to the greatest extent possible.’
29 No full study of Newman’s architectural endeavours and their impact is available. Essential source material is provided in Dessain, Charles Stephen (and Blehl, Vincent Ferrer) (eds), The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman (Birmingham, 1961, ongoing)Google Scholar. For a review of the wider foundation to his architectural theories, particularly with respect to Pugin, see Patrick, James, ‘Newman, Pugin and Gothic’, Victorian Studies, 24 (1981), 2, pp. 185–207 Google Scholar. On Newman’s early churches see especially, Underwood, Henry Jones, Views and Details of Littlemore Church, near Oxford (Oxford, 1840)Google Scholar; Howell, Peter, ‘Newman’s Church at Litdemore’, Oxford Art Journal, 6 (1983), 1, pp. 51–56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O’Donnell, Roderick, ‘Louis Joseph Due in Birmingham: ‘a “style Latin” church for Cardinal Newman, 1851’, Gazette des Beaux Arts, XCVIII (1981), 1350-1351, pp. 37–44 Google Scholar; Kane, Eileen, ‘John Henry Newman’s Catholic University Church in Dublin’, Studies, 66 (1977), pp. 105-20Google Scholar; Curran, C. P., Newman House and University Church (Dublin, n.d.)Google Scholar, and Newman, John Henry, My Campaign in Ireland, Part 1 : Catholic University Reports and Other Papers (Aberdeen, 1896), pp. 290–304 Google Scholar.
30 For the discussion of the representative collaboration between Pugin and Newman over the ill-fated Lives of the English Saints see Litvack, Leon, ‘A Brief Alliance, Pugin, Newman and the English Saints’, Antiquarian Book Monthly Review, 12 (1985), 10, pp. 376-81Google Scholar. Purcell, in his appendix to Ferrey’s Recollections, considers Newman’s response to Pugin in respectful detail, especially pp. 367-68, while Patrick, ‘Newman, Pugin and Gothic’, reviews the matter in greater depth.
31 A point first observed by Purcell: see Ferrey, Pugin, p. 368.
32 Dessain, , Letters, XII, p. 215 Google Scholar, Newman to Miss M. R. Giberne, 6 June 1848.
33 Ibid., XIII, pp. 460-62, Newman to Miss Holmes, 7 April 1850.
34 Newman, John Henry, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, 5th edn (London, 1881), p. 82 Google Scholar.
35 Dessain, , Letters, XIII, pp. 460-62Google Scholar, Newman to Miss Holmes, 7 April 1850.
36 Ibid., xi, p. 252, Newman to Henry Wilberforce, 24 September 1846.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid., xii, pp. 219-20, Newman to A. Lisle Phillipps, 15 June 1848.
39 Ibid., xi, p. 249, Newman to William Goodenough Penny, 24 September 1846.
40 On Pellegrini see Mazzocca, A. and Panizza, G., Pellegrino Pellegrini. L’architettura (Milan, 1990)Google Scholar.
41 See Kane, ‘John Henry Newman’s Catholic University Church in Dublin’, Curran, Newman House, and Tierney, Mark, ‘Correspondence between J. H. Newman and Archbishop Leahy on the sale of University Church, Dublin, 1857-1864’, Collectanea Hibernica, 6, 7 (1963, 1964), (245-63)Google Scholar. On Newman’s financial involvement see University College Dublin, Archives Department, The Catholic University and John Henry Newman (Catalogue for an exhibition held at Newman House, Dublin, 2-13 July 1984), Stand 12, Item 84, Letter from Newman to Cullen, 30 Sept. 1856 (copy in The Irish Architectural Archive, Dublin; RP.B. 15.5) and Curran, Newman House and University Church, p. 29.
42 Interestingly, to anticipate the argument presented here, the church erected by Newman at Littlemore in 1835–1836 already revealed his Catholic conception of architecture, with its bright interior, stone altar and unified space —the absence of a chancel being particularly noticeable. On this see Howell, ‘Newman’s Church at Littlemore’.
43 On Pollen see Pollen, Anne, John Hungerford Pollen 1820-1902 (London, 1912)Google Scholar.
44 Ward, Wilfred, The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman based on his private journals and correspondence (London, 1912), 1, p. 347 Google Scholar. Pollen did write an essay on the basilican form for the college magazine, The Atlantis, which was, the Ecclesiologist considered, ‘neither original nor accurate’ (‘The “Atlantis”, or the Structural Character of Basilicas’, Ecclesiologist, xix (1858), pp. 103-05), suggesting the professor’s limited appreciation of the type. He also published an anonymous description of the church which Newman happily described as ‘Blarney’ and speedily assigned to Pollen: Dessain, , Letters, XVII, Newman to Ambrose St John, 9 April 1856, p. 207 Google Scholar.
45 Newman, My Campaign in Ireland, p. 294. Also quoted in Curran, Newman House and University Church, p. 29, and Kane, ‘John Henry Newman’s Catholic University Church in Dublin’, p. 108.
46 Dessain, , Letters, XII, p. 52 Google Scholar, Newman to N. Wiseman, 23 February 1847.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid., XIII, pp. 460-62, Newman to Miss Holmes, 7 April 1850.
49 Wigley, Borromeo, p. 35.
50 As in the case of Wigley’s designs for S. Alfonso, discussed below.
51 ‘St. Charles Borromeo on Church-Building’, Rambler, iv, new series 2 (1855), pp. 363-70.
52 Ibid., p. 368.
53 ‘S. Charles Borromeo and Mr. Wigley’, Ecclesiologist, xix (1858), pp. 97-102.
54 Van Drivai, S. Carlo Borromoei. See also the review referred to in note 51 above, and the discussion by George Wigley at the Architectural Association reported in the Building News, 4 December 1857, pp. 1280-81.
55 Further reviews of Wigley’s Borromeo include those by the Builder (‘Books Received’, 23 January 1858, p. 64); Building News (‘Ecclesiastical vagaries’, 8 January 1858, pp. 43-44); the Rambler (‘Miscellaneous Literature’, ix, new series 2 (1858), p. 142). On the book see also the brief discussion in Anson, Church Furnishings, p. 176.
56 Wigley (Borromeo, p. vi), gives a useful date for his introduction to Borromeo’s text, noting that ‘Our attention was first called to this work by a Latin edition of the two Books of Instructions which was published at Paris and Arras in 1855, by Canon Van Drivai; and which was reviewed in the Rambler at the time.’ The review of which Wigley writes, referred to in note 51 above, appeared in November 1855. The only reason for being so specific about the review and its location in this context — the introduction to his own translation — is its personal importance. The Rambler, in its review of Wigley’s translation, also took credit for the author’s introduction to Borromeo, for which see note 55 above.
57 Presumably the Ecclesiologist felt generous in not giving the review the tide ‘Drivai and Wigley’.
58 Ecclesiologist, ‘S. Charles Borromeo and Mr. Wigley’, p. 98.
59 Ibid. The reference is to the discussion in Chapter XXIV (Wigley, Borromeo, pp. 97-99), ‘On the boarding used to divide a church’, in which the author notes that ‘. . . since it is of ancient institution . . . that, in Church, men should stand separated from women ... a boarding going in a straight line in the middle of the Church, from the entrance of the High Chapel to the chief door, should be put up . . . erected to the height of about five cubits (6ft 10½in.)’ (pp. 97-98). Wigley, in his footnote, remarks that the topic ‘seemed more archaeological than practical to us, until we went (here in London) to the Chapel of the Schools of Compassion . . . where we found a division, much of the kind here described ... to divide the boys from the girls, during the Holy Sacrifice.’
60 On Wigley see Dunn, Archibald J., Frederick Ozanam and the establishment of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul (London, 1853)Google Scholar, in which the author notes that he ‘derived the information . . . from my friend, George Jonas Wigley, who was a favorite pupil of Ozanam’ (p. vii), and in which is included a number of biographical details concerning Wigley. See also the Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1912), 15, p. 620, and Dictionary of Catholic Biography, ed. Delaney, John J. and Tobin, James Edward, (London, 1962), p. 1198 Google Scholar, both of which contain less reliable information. For professional references see also Directory of British Architects 1834-1900, ed. Felsted, Alison et al. (London, 1993), p. 991 Google Scholar; British Architectural Library, London (BAL), Wigley Biography File and BAL, WeS/2/11, this last the Welsh file on S. J. Nicholl, Wigley’s occasional partner as noted below. The relevant RIBA nomination papers (A V2) are reported missing.
61 Dunn, Ozanam, p. 72.
62 Scott, Geoffrey, St. Mary’s Church Woolhampton (Reading, 1975)Google Scholar.
63 See as general guides Ceschi, Carlo, Le Chiese di Roma dagli inizi del neoclassico al 1961 (Bologna, 1963), pp. 114-15Google Scholar, and Buchowiecki, Walter, Handbuch der Kirchen Roms (Wien, 1974), pp. 725-27Google Scholar, and anon., Villa Caserta (Rome, 1905). The church is mentioned in passing in Meeks, Carroll L. V., Italian Architecture 1750—1914 (New Haven and London, 1966), p. 281 Google Scholar, which notes its distinction as being ‘the first English-designed nineteenth-century church in Rome’, but refers to the architect as Mr Wrigley.
64 On Douglas see Kuntz, Fredericus, De vita Eduardi Douglas, presbyteri Congregationis SS. Redemptoris breve commentarium (Rome, 1909)Google Scholar, and Boland, Samuel J., ‘The conversion of Edward Douglas C.SS.R.’, Spicilegium Historicum Congregationis Ssmi Redemptoris, xxix (1981), pp. 291–322 Google Scholar.
65 A selection of uncatalogued drawings for S. Alfonso by Wigley, surviving from a dispersed larger set, is held in the Archivo Generali Redentori (AGR), Rome (Wigley Project, 1855). These are dated August-October 1855.
66 ‘The Architectural Association’, Building News, 6 November 1857, pp. 1173-79, et seq.
67 This design was described as appearing to be ‘an important parish or conventual church . . . boldly conceived, and free from much of the abortive pretension that characterises many of the un-English designs’, if hampered by a tower ‘redolent of travel in Italy rather than travail on the part of its designer’, (‘Architectural Drawings’, Building News, 8 January 1858, p. 36).
68 Harper, Roger H., Victorian Architectural Competitions, An Index to British and Irish Architectural Competitions in The Builder, 1843–1900 (London, 1983), p. 37 Google Scholar, and references cited there, with a further notice in Anson, Church Furnishings, p. 184.
69 The latest extant drawings in the AGR — detailing for the gable and cornice of the west front — dates to October 1855, a month before Wigley’s introduction to the text through the pages of the Rambler. See notes 56 and 65 above.
70 The dedication was described as ‘absurdly styled’ by Building News (8 January 1858, p. 53, note).
71 Wigley, Borromeo, pp. v-viii, for this and the following quotations.
72 The illustrations are: ‘Church’, pp. 8-9; ‘High Altar’, pp. 24-25; ‘Shrine’, pp. 52-53; ‘Baptistery Chapel’, pp. 66-67; ‘Baptistery’, pp. 70-71; ‘Ambo’, pp. 88-89; ‘Confessional’, pp. 92-93; ‘Superior Vestiary’, pp. 118-19.
73 Copies of these illustrations are held by Dom. Geoffrey Scott, OSB.
74 BAL, Welsh Papers, WeS/2/11.
75 Wigley, Borromeo, pp. 53-54.
76 Ibid.
77 Ibid., p. 121, note 2.
78 Quotation taken from the review of the French edition of Borromeo’s text in the Rambler referred to in note 51 above, and repeated by Wigley, in Building News, 4 December 1857, p. 1280 Google Scholar.
79 Wigley, Borromeo, p. 25, note.
80 Dessain, , Letters, XII, p. 52 Google Scholar, Newman to N. Wiseman, 23 February 1847.
81 Ibid., XII, pp. 219-20, Newman to A. Lisle Phillipps, 15 June 1848.
82 Ibid., XIII, pp. 460-62, Newman to Miss Holmes, 7 April 1850.
83 ‘St. Charles Borromeo on Church-Building’, Rambler, iv, new series 2 (1855), pp. 363-70.
84 ‘Miscellaneous Literature’, Rambler, ix, new series 2 (1858), p. 142.
85 ‘Ecclesiastical Vagaries’, Building News, 8 January 1858, pp. 43-44.
86 See note 53 above.