"The foundation stone of this Church, dedicated to the glory of God, and in the name of His Servant, Saint John the Evangelist, was laid by Richard Palmer, Clerk in Holy Orders, on the 25th day of October, 1871." Psalm cxxii was then sung, and prayers for the prosperity of the work were offered up; then followed the hymn, "Christ is made the sure foundation," and the Service ended with the Benediction, pronounced by the Rev. Hugh Pearson, Vicar. Nothing could be better than the arrangements that were made for the ceremony, and the whole service was marked by great solemnity, and by the utmost reverence on the part of the large concourse present. Our readers will be glad to have a word or two about the new Church. It is built and endowed by the munificence of Robert Palmer, Esq., of Holme Park, for the benefit of the populous district of Woodley. The Architect is Henry Woodyer, Esq., of Grafham, Guildford, who restored Sonning Church. The works are being carried on by Messrs. Green, and Cox, and Brown, of Sonning, and Mr. Wheeler, of Reading. The Church will be faced with flint and stone, it is goft. long, and will hold about two hundred persons. This is hardly the occasion for giving a full description of the building: we hope to do this, if we are spared, at the time of its consecration. Meanwhile, we are sure that all will be glad to see the thickness and strength of the walls as they grow up, and to watch the columns and arches rising in their beauty, and the whole fabric gradually forming itself into a temple fit for the worship of Almighty God. Within the foundation stone was placed a parchment, on which the inscription was written at greater length. It is as follows, "The foundation stone of this Church, in the Parish of Sonning, dedicated to the glory of God, and in the name of His Servant, Saint John the Evangelist, was laid by Richard Palmer, Rector of Purley, Berks, October 25th, 1871, on behalf of his eldest brother, Robert Palmer, of Holme Park, Esquire, by whom the Church is built and endowed, in affectionate memory of their youngest brother, Henry Palmer, Rector of Little Laver, Essex. Hugh Pearson, Vicar of Sonning. May God bless and prosper the work so well begun for His honour and glory! On the ECCLESIASTICAL ARCHITECTURE of ENGLAND Between the Norman Conquest and the Reformation. I The Norman Period (A.D 1066-A.D. 1189.) Comprising the reigns of William I and II, Henry I, Stephen, and Henry II. The Norman Conquest gave an immense stimulus to the cultivation of Architecture in England. It may, perhaps, be incorrect to date from that event the introduction of a radically new style. As the Norman Conquest itself was but the climax of a revolution which had for years previously been in gradual, though silent, and scarcelyperceived operation; so it may be surmised, and there are not wanting facts which appear to warrant the supposition, that the astonishing outburst of Architectural activity, which marks the century following the invasion of William I, was, but the result and efflorescence of tendencies already at work. Perhaps, a complete and definite settlement of this point may be unattainable; perhaps, we must be content to doubt whether the Normans ought to be considered as having introduced into this country a style of Architecture different in kind from that before practised here, or whether the change effected by them was merely one of degree. This much, however, is certain, (a) The ascertained examples of Saxon masonry are few and insignificant. (b) The descriptive notices of Saxon buildings, which have come down to us from antiquity, are vague and rhetorical. Consequently, to the ecclesiologist, who pays more attention to facts than to conjectures, and to history than to fables, the nativity of Architecture in England must practically be fixed at the date of the Norman invasion. We proceed to remark, 1. The energy with which the Conquerors, in an age of no great material opulence, in an age of barbarous ferocity and lawlessness, in an age when the other arts can scarcely be said to have had an existence, covered the whole of this land with costly and splendid buildings, dedicated to solemn and sacred purposes, and unsurpassed to this day in many essential features as specimens of architectural skill and design. It was remarked by a Roman of the Romans of old, that wherever they pushed their conquests, there also they established their habitations. It may be said in a similar way of the Normans, that wherever they pushed their conquests, they built Churches. Not only did they provide for the comparatively populous districts where places of worship were needed for the inhabitants; but even in the loneliest and most inaccessible spots they reared those magnificent fabrics, which are ot once the admiration the puzzle, the envy, and the despair of our own times, from the distant steep of Durham, and from the sequestered valley of Furness, to the marsh-fenced isle of Ely, and to Christ Church that echoes to the sound of the South ern Sea. 2. The same robust vigour, the same thoroughness of character, which impelled the Normans to undertake and execute these great works, are observable also in these works themselves. In the rugged, quaint, and ponderous buildings of this period, is mirrored the mind of the builders who raised them. Nowhere are the characteristic traits of Norman Architecture so conspicuous as in the Cathedral Church of Durham, impressive, almost oppressive, to the beholder, from its awful and massive grandeur, its religious gloom, and the appearance that it wears of adamantine solidity. One is tempted to think that Congreve could have been alluding to no other building, when he wrote these famous lines: "How reverend is the face of this tall pile, It strikes an awe And terror on my aching sight; the tombs The gigantic Abbey Churches at Glastonbury, and at Bury St. Edmunds, and the old Cathedral of St. Paul in London, can have been little, if at all, inferior to Durham. The mighty hull of St. Albans' still remains, and, as it is at length about to be restored, may long remain a glorious witness to the genius of the Norman Architects. But those of our readers who have not had the opportunity of visiting the "standing or falling" masterpieces of the Norman style at Durham, or St. Albans', at Bury St. Edmunds, or at Glastonbury, (old St. Paul's, they will scarcely need to be reminded, perished in the great fire of London, 1666) may yet form some idea of the strength and massiveness which characterise it, from an inspection of the ruins in the Forbury, at Reading. An old Latin proverb intimates to us that the connoisseur of sculpture in classical times could infer the body of a Hercules from the mere aspect of his foot. In the same way, as we survey the huge square pier-bases among the ruins of Reading Abbey, we can reproduce to our imagination the bulky pillars which stood upon those more than elephantine feet, and the solid walls which those pillars upheld. 3. The external supports, the buttresses in buildings of this style, lack that deep and bold projection which was given to them in the subsequent styles. Pinnacles and spires also were not employed till at any rate late in the Norman period. Hence arises a deficiency in the contrast of light and shade, and a want of variety in outline, which is hardly atoned for by the air of sedateness and repose, of majesty and simplicity, which the more important Norman Churches uniformly wear. In 4. The general proportions adopted were, as a rule, imposing. The balance between heighth and length was judiciously struck. the principal edifices it seems to have been the fashion to divide the heighth into three nearly equal portions, one for the pier-arches, one for the triforium, and one for the clerestory. This arrangement is not ineffective, though not perhaps the most satisfactory that could be devised. It has dignity, but it is also somewhat monotonous. Compare Peterborough Cathedral in this respect with Westminster Abbey, the " bright consummate flower" of English Architecture. The length was subdivided into numerous compartments, hence the apparent length is magnified. The Cathedrals of Ely and Norwich furnish good examples of this ingenious and effective kind of decep tion. 5. It has been common in modern times to speak of the "irregularity" of Gothic Architecture, and architects have sometimes thought proper to imitate this supposed irregularity by introducing into their designs a wild and chaotic jumble of discordant parts. In fact, each variety of Gothic Architecture, taken, as it should be taken, by itself, is marked by an almost rigid regularity and adherence to symmetry. It is no "fortuitous concourse of incongruous atoms. It is no "mighty maze without a plan." This is not perhaps more true of the Norman than of the early English, Decorated, or Perpendicular style. But the symmetry of a Norman building is less masked, more naked, more emphatic than that of a building of later date. Compare Salisbury, for instance, with the Norman parts of Ely or Peterborough. 6. The round arch was employed during this period, both in doorways and windows. The South aisle of Sonning Church furnishes us with an example in either kind. This will be a convenient place to remind our readers, that the style, which was at first plain, austere, and exceedingly massive, became in its later stages lighter, richer, and more elaborate. The windows and doorways were, except the capitals and shafts of the pillars, the parts of a Norman Church most affected by the change. If, as one of our great poets has said, "True beauty dwells in deep retreats," we may, with confidence, look for it in the manifold recesses of a Norman portal. 7. We may note the absence, till the latter days of Norman Architecture, of groining on a scale of any magnitude. The ceiling (said to be the original one) over the nave of Peterborough Cathedral, is of wood and nearly flat. 8. Sculpture was scarcely used at all. Painting was employed for internal decorations, sometimes profusely, at at S. Cross, near Winchester; sometimes just sufficiently to indicate and express the more salient architectural configurations. But the artists of those rude days were not Raphaels or Michael Angelos. Stained or painted glass was apparently in use from the beginning, and, at a time when the walls were thick and the windows comparatively small, must have contributed not a little to "cast" that "dim religious light," the charm of which all must feel, and Milton has so appropriately named. Objection may perhaps fairly be taken at the present day on utilitarian grounds to the unrestricted use of coloured glass. In the Norman days few could read, and fewer still understand, the services of the Church, which were then in Latin. Light was not therefore a very important desideratum. We must now take leave of the Norman builders. Their works are still with us, and speak to us of the energy, sincerity, and vigour of those who wrought them-qualities which half redeem the untamed rudeness and ferocity of their manners. These works seem also to convey to us from the depth of those by-gone generations, a reproach of our timidity and want of enterprize, of our half-heartedness and want of originality, of our bungling imitations and poverty of execution. What is the secret of their excellence, and of our illsuccess? What is it that justifies this reproach? The answer is, they were built in one style by men who built as they built because they could build in no other way, knew no other style, but laboured, heart and hand, to make the most of their resources, and to ennoble the style they did know; it is our misfortune to build in fifty different styles, and to fail in all of them. SONNING. (To be continued.) BAPTISMS. October 8th, -Arthur, William, son of George and Martha Chivers. SONNING. Annie, daughter of John and Jane Burt. F. H 11th,-Alice Jane, daughter of Thomas and Anne Wetherall. William Charles, son of Frederick and Fanny Headon Hollis. BURIALS. October 4th,-Thomas White, of Sonning, aged 27 years. 11th, Caroline Mary Turner, of St. Giles, Reading, aged 1 year. 19th,-Louise Kate Rutter, of Staplehurst, Kent, aged 7 months,. |