Los derechos de autor de este trabajo han caducado en la Unión Europea porque se publicó por primera vez hace más de 70 años sin una reivindicación pública de la autoría (anónimos o personas con apodos sin ser revelados), y no se llevó a cabo ninguna reclamación de la autoría en los setenta años posteriores a su publicación.
	Para utilizar esta plantilla, el archivo debe cumplir las dos siguientes condiciones: publicado hace más de 70 años, y la identidad real del autor original no se divulgó públicamente en relación con este archivo en el plazo de 70 años posteriores a su publicación. Nota: Si al archivo le falta alguno de estos criterios, no se debe utilizar esta plantilla. Se deben presentar evidencias razonables de que el nombre del autor (por ejemplo, el fotógrafo original, retratista) no se publicó con un aviso de derechos de autor en relación con este trabajo dentro de los 70 años posteriores a su publicación original. Las obras que no habían ingresado al dominio público en su país de origen en 1996 se deben marcar adicionalmente con {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. English | español | français | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | sicilianu | slovenščina | 中文 | +/−

THE RESTORATION OF ST. PATRICK'S.

We perceive by the last issue of the Dublin Builder that Mr. J. J. M'Carthy has taken exception to certain comments made by us in an article which was recently published in our columns on the “Restoration of St. Patrick's Cathedral.” In writing that article we had no other intention than that of informing the public as to the progress of one of the greatest works of our time, undertaken by one of the most munificent men of our age—a work which calls forth the sympathies of all, and for which all right-minded Irishmen of every creed should feel grateful. Whatever perpetuates the past, whatever adorns and beautifies a city, should be looked on with pride by its inhabitants, and when we see what was once falling into ruins, and likely to pass away, leaving no trace of its existence, but in the pages of history, reviving under the hands of workmen of our own country, successors of those who first reared it to the honour of the Almighty, and that at the cost of a private gentleman, zealous for his religion and for the happiness of his fellow-citizens, we should all feel thankful that such men exist, and we should regard the work with the feelings, not of the critic seeking where to find fault, but with unbounded gratitude that such a noble monument has been rescued from destruction. We almost feel pained that any person connected with the city of Dublin should have felt himself called upon—even in support of his own peculiar views, which were not assailed—to condemn works undertaken in such a spirit, and to declare “that works of the last three centuries have been religiously restored in all their hideous deformity.” Assertions such as these certainly to do not speak “a candid and unbiassed spirit.” We would ask the writer of the letter to which we refer was there in all the works at St. Patrick's nothing meriting praise—not the masonry, the simply mechanical part? Mr. M'Carthy, we observe, has no word of laudation—all is bad. “A question might,” he says, “arise as to what a restoration really is—whether it means a reproduction of every feature, good, bad, or nondescript, or a judicious eclecticism which would eliminate all decidedly bad and incongrous details, and replace them by others in harmony with the more perfect parts of the building.” A “restoration” is not simply a repairing, still less is it eclectic. A “restoration” is the reproduction of what once existed—not the bringing in of new elements. Once admit the eclectic view, and there is an end to “restoration,” properly so called. Such restorations represents the peculiar views of one man or a party of men, and these parties in the “ecclesiological school.” Suppose an architect were called upon to restore, for instance, Peterborough Cathedral, if he belonged to the “severe school” and public opinion were not against him, he might propose the removal of the grand west front as not being in keeping with the other parts, which are Norman. He might also wish to remove the late tracery from the windows. His eclecticism might lead him to this, and if the eclectic principle be admitted who could find fault with him? Why, then, blame the reproduction of the “Tudor” pinnacles at St. Patrick's? They have existed for a long time. The Tudor style is an admitted style, though not admired by some ecclesiologists. If, however, these pinnacles had been removed what should have replaced them? One ecclesiologist would select one style of finish, another another. Would any two Dublin architects left to themselves select the same? And who is to choose between them? Where is the authority? The Tudor pinnacles were there, and Mr. Guinness rightly had them restored. Had he wished to build a new Saint Patrick's on the site of the old one, he would, doubtless, have employed an architect to give him plans; but this not being his intention, he thought himself capable, as he is, to see what in the building belonged to any acknowledged style of pointed architecture restored and put in good repair. On the whole, Saint Patrick's is beginning again to look what we can assume it was four centuries ago. The nave is restored almost exactly as Mr. Carpenter proposed, the only exception being that he omitted the tritorium. And this leads us to a criticism, the notice of which will be sufficient to show the reliance to be placed on the statements and dicta of Mr. M'Carthy's letter. It was discovered that to build the groined roof of the nave in brick or stone would involve the necessity of pulling down and re-building the north side of the church. This, for obvious reasons, was not done, and the old groining was, therefor, produced in timber and plastered. Mr. M'Carthy says, in the letter we notice:—

There was another instance in which the assistance of an experienced architect of the ecclesiological school was needed. Some of the springers of the ancient joining of the nave remained attached to the clerestory walls. It was found that if the curves of these springers were continued they would cross the clerestory windows. The builder hit on the ingenious device of making the arches trefoiled, thus surmounting the (to him) apparent difficulty presented by the height of the window, but producing an unique style of groining, which, fortunately for its stability, is executed in lath and plaster, as it certainly would be an impossibility in stone. An architect of the ecclesiological school would have solved the difficulty (if any there really was) differently.

Now it should be remembered, that he, throughout his whole letter, speaks in the highest terms of the late Mr. Carpenter (who, no doubt, deserved his praise):—

Those who have seen Mr. Carpenter's plans, and have compared them with the works at present in progress, must see how great has been the loss to St. Patricks that the views of that gifted artist have not been realized.

He recognises in him a great leader of the ecclesiological school, as he decidedly was. Had St. Patrick's been rebuilt according to Mr. Carpenter's plans, it would be all that Mr. M'Carthy could desire. Mr. M'Carthy's commentare on the nave ceiling says:—“The builder hit on a ingenious device of making the arches trefoiled.” We have seen Mr. Carpenter's plans, and we find that he proposed to restore the roof, as it has been restored, except that he would have attempted what Mr. M'Carthy says would have been an impossibility. He would have restored it in brick, a thing as difficult as to restore it in stone. The following is what Mr. Carpenter says on the groining of the nave roof:—

“The groining of the nave ceiling was very peculiar. I do not remember an example at all approaching it except the nave of Lichfield Cathedral; even it differs very considerably from this. The well arches formed trefoils round the heads of the clerestory windows, while the groin to cross springers were circular, as usual in buildings of this date.”

Not to the builder's ingenuity, but to “poor Carpenter,” are we indebted for this really “unique style of groining,” and if the people of Dublin, of Ireland, have any gratitude they will thank him for preserving this beautiful peculiarity in their great national church. Had the work of “restoration” been committed to Mr. M'Carthy, it is clear, from his own words, that we should have lost it for ever. The eulogist and the object of his eulogy do not agree. Who is right? Of what value, then, are the few other exceptions taken to the present restoration, when a “judicious eclectisicism” would have departed from what really was the ancient style of roofing of the nave of St. Patrick's? No work is so perfect but that some will find fault with it. On the whole, let any unprejudiced man inspect the works at St. Patrick's. If he be not a partizan of some “ecclesiological school,” he will, when he remembers what it formerly was, lift up his eys in admiration, and give that just and righteous praise which is due, first to the generous acts of a gentleman of refined and enlightened taste; and afterwards to the practical talent and untiring energy of one who has falsified every prophecy in hitherto conducting the work of restoration so well, safely and without accident.