Part 1

Transcriber's Note.

Apparent typographical errors, including inconsistent use of hyphens, have been corrected. The author's use of accents has been retained.

Italics are indicated by _underscores_ and the use of blackletter font by +signs+. Small capitals have been replaced by full capitals.

Any period below a superscript, or that is superscripted itself, has been removed.

The plates illustrate many of the screens and rood lofts that are described in the text. They have been moved to the end of appropriate chapters. They each bear the inscription "London Published by C Dolman 61 New Bond Street."

There may be some confusion between the cathedrals of Sens and of Senlis, both near Paris. There is an illustration of the screen of the former, but no text; and a paragraph on the latter that mentions an illustration, which is absent.

[Frontispiece: A CATHEDRAL SCREEN. A PAROCHIAL SCREEN.]

A TREATISE ON

CHANCEL SCREENS AND

ROOD LOFTS,

Their Antiquity, Use, and Symbolic Signification.

BY A. WELBY PUGIN, ARCHITECT.

ILLUSTRATED WITH FIGURES COPIED ON STONE FROM DRAWINGS BY THE AUTHOR.

NE TRANSGREDIARIS TERMINOS QUOS POSUERUNT PATRES TUI.

LONDON: CHARLES DOLMAN, 61, NEW BOND STREET, AND 48A, PATERNOSTER ROW.

1851.

PRINTED BY COX (BROTHERS) AND WYMAN, GREAT QUEEN STREET, LINCOLN'S-INN FIELDS.

CONTENTS.

+Introduction+ 1

+Of the Enclosure of Choirs+ 14 Of the Choir 16 High Altar 16 Jubé or Rood Loft 17 Furniture of the Rood Lofts 18

+On Screens in Italy and Spain+ 22 The Sistine Chapel Screen 24 Quirinal Chapel 25 San Clemente 25 Basilica of St. Nerei and Achille, Rome 26 Santa Croce 27 San Michele 27 San Petronio, Bologna 28 Padua 28 Venice 29

+On Screens in Germany and Flanders+: Screens at Lubeck 31 Munster 33 Brunswick 34 Hildesheim 35 Bremen 35 Basle 36 Friedberg and Glenhausen 36 Marburg, Halberstadt, and Ulm 36 S. Lawrence, Nuremberg 37 Great Church at Oberwesel 37 Haarlem 38 Dixmude 39 Aerscot 39 Louvain 39 Tournai 40 Bruges 40 Church of Hal, near Brussels 40 Antwerp 41 Ghent 42

+On Screens in France+: Cathedral of Amiens 44 Abbaye de S. Bertin, S. Omers 45 S. Quentin 45 Cathedral of Lyons 46 Cathedral of Orleans 46 Abbey of S. Denis, near Paris 46 Notre Dame de Mantes 47 Abbaye de Fontenelle, or S. Wandrille 47 Conventual Church of the Grand Augustins, Paris 48 Church of the Mathurins, Paris 48 Rheims 48 S. Nicaise, Rheims 49 S. Gatien, Tours 49 Church of Souvigny, in the Bourbonnais 49 Abbaye de S. Ouen, Rouen 49 Rouen Cathedral 51 Cathedral of Auxerre 52 Cathedral of Chartres 52 Cathédrale d'Albi 53 Cathédrale d'Autun 54 Cathédrale de Senlis 54 Cathedral of Toulouse 54 Church of S. Sernin, Toulouse 54 Cathedral of Auch 55 Cathedral of Rodez, Languedoc 55 Cathedral of Troyes 55 Account of the Jubés formerly standing in the Churches of Troyes 57 Villemaur 58 S. Germain de l'Auxerrois, Paris 59 S. Etienne du Mont, Paris 59 Bourges 59 Notre Dame, Paris 60 Abbey of Fecamp 61 Cathedral Church of Bayeux 61 S. Riquier, near Abbeville 62 S. Wulfran, near Abbeville 62

+On Screens in Brittany+: S. Fiacre le Faouet 63 Lambader 63 Folgoet 64

+On Screens in England+ 65 Accounts of S. Margaret's, Westminster 70 S. Lawrence, Reading 71 Churchwardens' Accompts of S. Mary Hill 72 Churchwardens' Accompts of S. Helen's, Abingdon 72 Extracts from the Churchwardens' Accompts of Heybridge 73 Extracts from the Churchwardens' Accompts of Walberswick 73 Extracts from the Churchwardens' Accompts of Woodbridge 73 Account of the Screen in the Church of S. Giles-in-the-Fields 74

+Of the four classes of Ambonoclasts+: The Calvinist Ambonoclast 76 The Pagan Ambonoclast 81 The Revolutionary Ambonoclast 91 The Modern Ambonoclast 98

+Conclusion+ 100

LIST OF PLATES.

I. FRONTISPIECE. { A Cathedral Screen. { A Parochial Screen.

II. { Elevation of Screen of Old S. Peter's Church, at Rome. { Plan of the Chancel of Ditto.

{ Marble Screen in the Basilica of SS. Nerei and Achille. III. { Iron Screen from an ancient painting at Sienna, representing { the Life of Pius II., by Pinturicchio.

IV. { Marble Screen in the Church of the Frairi, Venice. { Detached Altar of S. Michele, Florence, with its Brass Screen.

V. { Rood Screen of the Marienkirche, Lubeck. { Rood Loft, Cathedral, Munster.

VI. { Screen in the Dom-Kirche, Lubeck. { Screen and Rood Loft, Hospital, Lubeck.

VII. { Rood Loft, S. Katherine's Church, Lubeck. { Screen and Rood Loft, Dom, Hildesheim.

VIII. { Screen at Glenhausen. { S. Elisabeth's Church, Marburg.

{ Screen at Oberwesel. IX. { Plan of the Jubé, Cathedral, Metz. { Plan of the Jubé, Cathedral, Toul. { Screen of S. Nicholas's Church, Lorraine.

{ Rood Screen, Cathedral, Antwerp: seventeenth century. X. { One of the Altars erected against the Nave Pillars, with its { Brass Screen-work.

XI. { Iron Screen, Choir of S. Sernin, Toulouse. { Iron Screen at Toledo.

XII. { Screen in the Cathédrale de Sens. { Screen in S. Agnes, Picardy.

{ Screen in S. Fiacre le Faouet. XIII. { Screen in S. Folgoet. { Screen in S. Germain, in Ribermont. { Plan of Jubé, Notre Dame de l'Epine.

{ Lambader, Brittany. XIV. { Iron Screen at S. Riquier: eighteenth century. { Wooden Screen in the Church of Urnes, near Bergen.

A TREATISE ON ROOD SCREENS, _&c._

INTRODUCTION

The subject on which I am about to treat is one of far more importance than the generality of men may be willing to admit; it is not a mere question of architectural detail, respecting a few mullions and a transverse beam, but it involves great principles connected with discipline, and even faith, and it is a question in which all those who either wish for the revival of ancient solemnity and reverence, or even the preservation of what yet remains, are most deeply interested. The contest that has been raised by the restoration of screens in England is not altogether new; it occurred in France during the latter part of the last century, when a vile spirit of modern innovation appears to have arisen among a portion of the French clergy, chiefly in the capitular bodies, and more injury was then inflicted on the great churches of that country than was caused by the outrages of the Calvinists and Huguenots in the civil wars of the sixteenth century. The traditions of the church, as regards the _disposition_ and _arrangement_ of ecclesiastical buildings in the northern countries, do not appear to have been much affected by the revived paganism of the sixteenth century; the details were debased and incongruous, but the _things_ remained unaltered _in principle_,—rood lofts were erected, choirs were stalled, cruciform churches, with aisles and lateral and lady chapels, and transepts, were the general type followed,[1] and screens for choirs, side chapels, and altars were universal. But gradually, from the adoption of the details of classic antiquity, the buildings themselves became objects of imitation, till revived paganism displayed its full absurdity in the substitution of a temple of Jupiter for a church of the crucified Redeemer in the huge _room_ called the Madeleine. Designed by infidels, built by infidels, and suited only for infidel purposes, and then turned over, for want of another use, to become a church!

The very decorations are an insult to Christianity; an ambitious conqueror, set up as a deity, occupying the place of our divine Redeemer himself, a mockery and a terrible blasphemy against that God to whose service the place has been unfortunately devoted; moreover, this monument of absurd impiety has been raised at a greater cost than what would have produced one of the fairest churches of mediæval construction, and it is so practically unsuited for even the ordinary requirements of a church, that there are no means for hanging bells, but a vain attempt was made of suspending them in the roof, where they stunned all _within_ the building, and were inaudible to those _without_, for whose benefit they were intended, and, after a short trial, they were finally removed.

I have been induced to speak particularly of this edifice, as it is the beau ideal of a modern church in the minds of those who are opposed to screens; for the principles of these men, worked out to their legitimate ends, are subversive of every tradition and the whole system of ecclesiastical architecture. Screens are, in truth, the very least part of the cause of their animosity to the churches of their Fathers, for if any man says he loves pointed architecture, and hates screens, I do not hesitate to denounce him as a liar, for one is inseparable from the other, and _more_, inseparable from _Catholic arrangement in any style_, Byzantine, Norman, Pointed, or debased. We have now to contend for the great principles of Catholic antiquity,—tradition and reverence against modern development and display. It is not a struggle for taste or ornament, but a contention for _vital principles_. There is a most intimate connection between the externals of religion and the faith itself; and it is scarcely possible to preserve the interior faith in the doctrine of the holy eucharist if all exterior reverence and respect is to be abolished.

"There is no higher act in the Christian religion," says Father Le Brun, "than the Sacrifice of the Mass; the greater portion of the other sacraments, and nearly all the offices and ceremonies of the church, are only the means or the preparation to celebrate or participate in it worthily." Such being the case, it is but natural that the place where this most holy sacrifice is to be offered up, should be set apart and railed off from less sacred portions of the church, and we find this to have been the case in all ages, in all styles, and in all countries professing the Catholic faith down to a comparatively very recent period, when in many places all feelings of sanctity, tradition, and reverence, seemed to have been superseded by ignorant innovation and love of change.

It will be shown in this work that the idea of room-worship, and the all-seeing principles, is a perfect novelty. Those indeed who would make the mass _a sight_, are only to be compared to the innovators of the 16th century, who made it essential to be _heard_; those who compiled the Book of Common Prayer converted the mass into all-hearing service; this was the great object of the vernacular change, that people might _hear_ the priest; they were to be edified by what he _said_, more than what he _did_; the sacrificial act was merged into the audible recitation of prayers and exhortations; for this reason the altars, in the reign of Edward the Sixth, were to be moved down from their eastern position to the entrance of the chancel, to enable the people to hear; this led to the demolition of stone altars and the substitution of tables. For this reason the whole congregation crowd into the choirs of the cathedrals, leaving the rest of the church deserted. For this reason, in large parochial churches, the chancel has been often entirely cut off, and a portion of the nave glazed in and reduced to such a size that the people could hear the clergyman; these were all natural consequences of the change of principle consequent on the translation of the mass, and the altered nature of its celebration. That churches are now built after the old tradition for the service of the separated portion of the English Church, is purely owing to an internal revival of Catholic feelings and traditions in that body: the cause is a return to Catholic truth and reverence; the effect is the erection of churches in accordance with those feelings. It has been a charge and reproach made by Catholics against their separated countrymen, that the old fabrics were unsuited to their service, and unquestionably, on the principle that it was essential for _every one to hear_, they were so. But I will ask these new-fashioned men if it is indispensable for _every one to see_, how much better are they adapted for modern Catholic rites? They become as unfit for one as the other, for it is unquestionable, that comparatively very few persons in these cruciform churches could obtain a view of the altar, and this _independent of any screen-work_, the disposition of the pillars intersecting and shutting out all those who are stationed in the aisles and transepts.

I have always imagined that one great distinction between the Protestant and Catholic services was this, that the former was essentially a _hearing_ service, at which only a comparatively few persons could assist, while at the latter many thousands, or, indeed, hundreds of thousands could unite in one great act of adoration and praise, concentrating their thoughts and intentions with the priest who is offering at God's altar, although he is far shut off from their vision.

_Real Protestants_ have always built rooms for their worship, or walled up the old churches, when they have fallen into their possession, into four or five distinct spaces, as in Scotland. But the separated church of England, though Protestant in position, in name, and in practice, has retained so much of the old traditions in her service, and is linked by so many ties to older and better times, that she naturally turns back to them with affection and reverence, and seeks, as far as her maimed rites and fettered position will admit, to restore the departed glory of the sanctuary. Few persons are aware that the choirs of three of the English cathedrals were completely restalled, and after the old arrangements, by the munificence of churchmen in the seventeenth century; moreover, the completion of some towers and extensive works date from the same period. It is a consoling fact, that the cathedrals of England retain more of their old Catholic arrangements and fittings than most of those on the continent: and as regards the fabricks, they have suffered less injury, and have preserved their original character most wonderfully. Architecturally, we must certainly admit that the Anglicans have been good tenants of the old fabricks; we must not test them by the works of preceding centuries, but by the corresponding period; and when we reflect on the debased state of design and art that prevailed, even in those countries which were nominally exclusively Catholic, we may be thankful that our great religious edifices have been so well handed down to our own times, when the recognition of their beauty and grandeur is daily increasing.[2] I have dilated on this subject, for if the lingering remains of Catholic traditions which have been so imperfectly preserved since the separation of England in the sixteenth century, have yet produced such edifying results, how much more have we reason to expect from those who should possess them in all their fullness! and how heart-rending, how deplorable, how scandalous is it to behold (as, sad to say, we have now fearful examples) even priests of the very temple combining, by word and deed, to break down the carved work of the sanctuary, and destroying the barriers erected by ancient reverence and faith!

But to return, I cannot too strongly impress on the minds of my readers that the very _vitals_ of Catholic architecture are assailed by the opponents of screens.

Those who complain of not being able to see in a Pointed church should have assisted at an ancient service in a Roman basilica; the altar surrounded by pillars sustaining veils and curtains, and covered by a ciborium, was placed in _front_ of the celebrant, of whom nothing could be discerned by the congregation except an occasional glimpse of his head; the space behind the altar was reserved for the bishop and his presbyters, while in front was the choir for those who sung, walled round to a considerable height, averaging five feet, and within, or occasionally outside, this space, were the ambones for the epistle and gospel, marble rostrums, ascended by steps, and usually of large dimensions; moreover, the basilicæ were constructed with aisles, like pointed churches, so that not one-tenth part of the congregation could have seen either the celebrant or the mensæ of the altar. And although it does not appear that the Latin church has purposely excluded the sight of the altar from the people, yet from the beginning the canonical arrangement of her sacred edifices has had the practical effect of cutting off its view from a very large portion of the assisting faithful.