THE “VANDAL RESTORERS OF SAINT PATRICK'S”

183, Great Brunswick-street, Jan. 28.

Sir—My letter to the Dublin Builder was not sent to the Freeman's Journal, because the subjects of discussion were opinions expressed in the Ecclesiologist, a London architectural magazine of high repute. I merely referred incidentally to a proposition of the Freeman for the “material alteration or removal of the Lady Chapel,” an idea which, I suppose, you have abandoned, as you have made no reference to it since my objections to the suggestion have appeared. The argument of my letter was briefly this—that as a committee composed of such gentlemen as the late Primate Beresford, the Duke of Leinster, Lord Dunraven, the Rev. Dr. Todd, and Dr. Petrie, the first of Irish antiquaries, would not undertake the restoration of St. Patrick's without the advice of an architect, it seemed a rash and impossible undertaking for Mr. Guinness solely. I then referred to certain restorations of modern renovations of the building, to the destruction of some of its original features, and to entirely new works for which there is no authority in the ancient Cathedral, in order to show that the professed scheme of restoration is not adhered to. I certainly should not have claimed a place for that letter in the Freeman's Journal had Messrs. Murphy's reply appeared in the Dublin Builder only. It is a strange idea of fair discussion, that of publishing an answer and suppressing the arguments that called it forth. A bold, flat contradiction, or groundless statement, is no argument; and these are the staple of your and Messrs. Murphy's replies, with a considerable seasoning of personal abuse in the latter. Take an example. “The pile of rude masonry which separated the transepts and choir from the nave, and which supported the organ, intercepting the view, was not only not a rood screen, but was not even in the position which a rood screen should occupy.” Now, hear the committee of which Dr. Petrie was a member, on the same subject—“The organ stands on the base of the ancient rood screen, which still remains, the old rood stair case leading to the present organ loft” (Vide the prospectus of the restoration by the committee). We can form some idea of the intelligence of the present restorers of St. Patrick's, by their mistaking what a committee of learned men have unequivocally decided to be a rood screen for a “pile of rude masonry.” Again, “these buttresses referred to have been built exactly according to one finished under Mr. Carpenter's superintendence.” The buttress quoted as an authority was not restored under Mr. Carpenter's superintendence or direction. Those restored by Mr. Carpenter belong to the lady chapel and the east end of the choir. They afford a good example of his manner of restoration, constrasted with that of the present restorers. It is rather too much to expect the “concoction” of a letter in reply to “facts,” and refutations of which the foregoing are examples, while the letter to which they profess to be answers is carefully suppressed. The question of the architectural merits of the restoration of St. Patrick's have now, however, been fairly raised, and is taken up by art journals, which habitually admit views and arguments on both sides of a question, provided they are accompanied by irrelevant and abusive personalities, and the imputation of unworthy and dishonourable motives.
—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
J. J. M‘CARTHY.

	Este material está en dominio público en los demás países donde el derecho de autor se extiende por 100 años (o menos) tras la muerte del autor. También debes incluir una etiqueta de dominio público de los Estados Unidos para indicar por qué esta obra está en el dominio público en los Estados Unidos.
	Esta obra ha sido identificada como libre de las restricciones conocidas en virtud del derecho de autor, incluyendo todos los derechos conexos.

https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse