Slike strani
PDF
ePub

Poore's researches on the question of dry methods of sanitation. These are of a thoroughness refreshing amid the too frequent pseudo-scientific attempts that bear on their face evidences of slipshod and incompetent work.

There have been numerous treatises on the advantages of dry methods over our present system of water removal, but none that go to the root of the matter with the biological accuracy possessed by that of Dr. Poore.

The natural processes governing the suggested arrangements are so fully and thoroughly explained as to secure one's confidence in the practicability of the latter, at least from the sanitary point of view; as to their likelihood of securing popular support, we may be permitted to share Dr. Poore's doubts.

A few quotations will give a brief synopsis of this second chapter:

The change which is produced in excrement when mixed with earth, whereby the excrement is humified, i.e. changed to something which is indistinguishable by our senses from ordinary garden mould, or humus, is due to the action of fungoid organisms.

In order that humification may take place, two things are necessary :-

1. The matter must be tolerably dry-absolute dryness checks the process, so does excess of moisture. It is stated that about 33 per cent. of moisture is the amount with which the humifying change is most rapid.

2. The access of air is necessary, because the organisms which produce humification are aërobic, and, as much of the change consists of oxidation, it is evident that the free access of air is essential.

Where pail closets are used

the contents of the pails are removed every morning, and are superficially buried in a furrow such as a gardener makes when turning up the ground with a spade. One must insist that the covering of the excreta cannot be too light, as it is essential for the due humification of the organic refuse that the air have access to the pores of the soil.

But the author considers that

[blocks in formation]

It

With this arrangement no putrefaction takes place. is not a matter of much practical moment whether or not earth be thrown into the dry catch after the excreta, because the arrangement ensures that offensiveness is reduced to a minimum.

If earth be used, this humification will go on in the catch itself, and the longer such a catch is used the better it will act, always provided that moderate dryness and free access of air are ensured.

If there be cultivable land at hand, and the nearer such land is to the houses the better, I believe the best course to pursue is to bury the excreta daily in superficial furrows.

If there be no cultivable land at hand, then the excreta would have to be taken to a rough shed (sufficient to keep off the rain) and mixed with earth. The process of humifica

tion would be completed in three months, and the humus thus formed might be used over and over again ad infinitum. The great advantage which follows from the scientific use of "dry methods" is the continuity of the process. Nature turns all the excrement to humus, and humus is acknowledged to be the very best purifier of offensive nitrogenous matter which the world affords. The dark humus which is found everywhere, and which provides for all our needs, is nothing but excrement which has suffered a natural transformation brought about by a process which is purely biological. The oftener such humus is used the better it acts, and, further, it slowly increases in bulk. There can be no doubt as to its horticultural value, and if the authority cannot use it, the neighbouring farmers and gardeners will gladly do so. One of the difficulties connected with the dry-earth system is the procuring of earth, but from what I have said it is evident that an initial store of earth sufficient for six months' use, if judiciously, carefully, and scientifically used, would for ever take away the necessity of providing a fresh store.

The best arrangements for indoor earth closets and the dry treatment of urine, by absorption in peat or sawdust, and resultant purification, are also dealt with, followed by some valuable notes on the housing of animals. Dr. Poore supports his views on the sanitary value of surface humification of excrement by evidences of the purity of a surface well in the garden used for this purpose.

The

The third chapter deals with the disposal of slopwater, and shows that it is quite as easily treated and as valuable as the excrement. system of filtration gutters adopted would be difficult to make clear without the diagrams provided. The advantages of the naturally intermittent supply are thoroughly explained.

Chapter IV., while containing some interesting statistics, is of less value to the architect, who will doubtless speedily detect fallacies in several of the assumptions and deductions; but in Chapter V. Dr. Poore gets back to his own ground, and goes into the circulation of organic matter with the same knowledge and skill exhibited in the earlier portions of the book, throughout the whole of which it will be found that the problems dealt with are handled with a good grasp and in a refreshing and original manner.

(183)

H. V. LANCHESTER.

BEVERLEY BAR.

The Building of Beverley Bar, by Arthur F. Leach, M.A., F.S.A. The North Bar, Beverley, by John Bilson, F.S.A. Reprinted from the Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, Vol. IV., 1896.

66

The

In the first of these two papers we have what the author describes as probably a unique specimen of the complete accounts of the erection of a medieval building still standing." building in question is the old gate of Beverley, situated not far from St. Mary's Church, and it is described architecturally in the second paper, that contains also a commentary on the information presented in the accounts. The Bar was erected in the year 1409-10 by the Corpora

tion, which itself superintended the work "without the intervention of any middle-man or contractor," and procured and paid for the materials and the labour as the task required.

From the detailed accounts thus preserved we derive information as to the cost of carriage and labour, and the price of various materials in this part of England at the beginning of the fifteenth century. The actual cost in money of the time seems to have been about £95, and Mr. Bilson has estimated that it would have cost in the present day some £800 or £900. As money at that time may be reckoned at a good deal more than ten times its present value, the comparison would seem to imply that the cost of building is relatively less now than it was in the fifteenth century.

The chief point of interest about the structure in question is, that the material is brick, and the writers emphasize this fact as a new piece of evidence that brick buildings existed in this country earlier than is commonly supposed. Mr. Bilson's paper ends with some valuable sentences on this subject, and he points out that the word tegulæ, which in old lists of prices, such as those published by Professor Thorold Rogers, has been translated tiles," in reality means almost as often "bricks." There is plenty of evidence that tegula were made and used in England at an early period, and such tegula would be used for walling as well as roofing. It is to be noted that "wall-tiles," equivalent to our "bricks," appear in the price lists as costing only about half as much as "thack-tiles for roofing, and this difference in price may enable the two kinds of tegula to be distinguished in medieval records.

[ocr errors]

Brick-making, at any rate, seems to have been a recognized industry at Beverley at this epoch, for the Corporation make their purchases "from as many as twenty different persons." Some of the bricks used for the jambs of openings are chamfered, and these appear in the accounts published by Mr. Leach as "squynchon "-a word still known in the architectural terminology of Scotland. Only two purveyors furnish these moulded bricks, the preparation of which implied, no doubt, a certain advance in the brickmaker's art.

These two papers are examples of the thorough scientific work that is being carried on under the auspices of local antiquarian societies in so many parts of the country. The material that is being in this way accumulated about medieval archæology is both extensive and of the highest value to students of the period. The combination of the study of records with the practical investigation of existing monuments represents the only sound method by which our knowledge can be advanced, and this combination is happily illustrated in the papers here noticed.

Edinburgh.

G. BALDWIN BROWN.

MINUTES. VII.

At the Seventh General Meeting (Ordinary) of the Session, held Monday, 7th February 1898, at 8 p.m., Mr. H. L. Florence, Vice-President, in the Chair, the Minutes of the Meeting held 24th January 1898 [p. 180 ante] were taken as read and signed as correct.

The following members attending for the first time since their election were formally admitted and signed the respective registers-viz.: Charles Busteed Fowler [F], President of the Cardiff, South Wales, and Monmouthshire Society (Cardiff); and Nicholas Fitzsimons [4] (Belfast).

A letter having been read from the Secretary of the Architectural Union Company announcing that the Company had voted a donation of £30 to the Institute Library Fund, for the purchase of books, a vote of thanks to the Company was carried by acclamation.

A letter was read from the Secretary of the Glasgow Institute of Architects announcing that the Glasgow Institute had passed a resolution congratulating the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects on his recent election as a Royal Academician.

The following candidates for membership, found to be eligible and qualified according to the Charter and By-laws, and admitted by the Council to candidature, were recommended for election, viz. :-As FELLOWS, George Lethbridge [4.] and Edward Thomas Boardman (Norwich); As ASSOCIATES, Laurence Hobson [Probationer 1893, Student 1896, Qualified 1897, Arthur Cates Prizeman Nov. 1897] (Liverpool), William Charles Hulbert [Qualified 1897), John Ormrod [Probationer 1891, Student 1895, Qualified 1897] (Bolton), Dulley Christopher Maynard [Probationer 1893, Student 1895, Qualified 1897], Timothy Honnor [Probationer 1889, Student 1891, Qualified 1897], Harry John Pearson, F.S.I. [Probationer 1895, Student 1897, Qualified 1897], Ralph Henry Morton [Probationer 1890, Student 1894, Qualified 1897], Herbert Shepherd [Probationer 1892, Student 1894, Qualified 1897], William McCulloch [Qualified 1897] (St. Andrews, Fife), John Frederick Duthoit [Probationer 1892, Student 1895, Qualified 1897) (Dover), Henry Albert Collins [Qualified 1886].

In the matter of the award of the Royal Gold Medal for the current year, the Chairman having announced that the Council proposed to submit to Her Majesty the Queen the name of the President, Professor Aitchison, R.A., as a fit recipient thereof, and Mr. William Woodward [4.] having protested against the Council's nominating for the distinction the actual occupant of the Presidential Chair, and urged that steps be taken to prevent such action being made a precedent, the Chairman explained that precedent already existed for the Council's action, and that the Jubilee year was a fitting occasion to honour the head of the representative architectural body.

A Paper, by Mr. Edwin O. Sachs, entitled THE HOUSING OF THE DRAMA, having been read by the author, and discussed, a vote of thanks was passed to him by acclamation.

The proceedings then closed, and the Meeting separated at 10 p.m.

Books received for Review.

The Cathedral Church of Exeter: a Description of its Fabric and a Brief History of the Episcopal See. By Percy Addleshaw, B.A. 80. Lond. 1898. Price 18. 6d. [Messrs. George Bell & Sons, York Street, Covent Garden.] Examples of Greek and Pompeian Decorative Work. Measured and drawn by James Cromar Watt. Fo. Lond. 1897.

Mr. B. T. Batsford, 94, High Holborn.

[graphic]

I

THE MEDIEVAL CAMPANILI OF ROME.

BY J. TAVENOR PERRY [F].

Read before the Royal Institute of British Architects on Monday, 21st February 1898.

N bringing before the Institute a Paper on such a well-known subject as the Mediæval Campanili of Rome, some apology may appear to be necessary, for there are scarcely any buildings of the city with which we are so familiar, and there is no architect or painter who has failed to appreciate their beauty and picturesqueness, and no archæologist who has not speculated on their origin and history. And yet, unfortunately, although so many of these towers have found their way into the sketch-books or note-books of travellers, no one has, in any serious way, propounded any theory to account for their origin, or published, if he has discovered it, any historical evidence which would enable us to fix their dates and name their builders. It is for such reasons as these that I have attempted in this Paper to put together such information as I have found scattered among published notices of these buildings, together with my own notes and sketches made during several visits to Rome, which may form the nucleus of a history, to be amended or enlarged by the knowledge or experience of those who are better acquainted with the subject, but, as yet, have not contributed their views to the public on this most interesting branch of architectural archæology.

Beyond having the inviting question of their history to determine, it is important that some detailed and definite account of these buildings should at once be put on record. Earthquakes, sieges, and civil troubles have done their share of damage all through medieval times; but it is to the neglect and destruction of more recent years that the melancholy condition of these monuments is largely due, and from such circumstances we have to fear for them a yet worse fate; so that a future generation may have nothing but our printed records to tell them what they have lost. The beautiful tower of the Annunziata, standing in the ruins of Mars Ultor, and that of SS. Cosma e Damiano in the Forum* were, it is true, destroyed many years ago; but it is to the period which has followed the change of government in Rome, and to many circumstances attending it, that the greatest damage is to be attributed. Many of the campanili belonged to conventual establishments, which have been either suppressed or disendowed, and no funds are now available for the simplest necessary repairs. One of the finest of them, S. Silvestro in Capite, is occupied by the telegraph service, and others in the Trastevere, such as S. Giacomo Lungara, seem doomed to destruction to make space for the roads along the new embankments of the Tiber. For

The tower of SS. Cosma e Damiano is shown on page 215 of Lanciani's Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome. This was destroyed in 1612.

Third Series. Vol. V. No. 8. 26 Feb. 1898.

G G

these among other reasons I think I need not apologise for bringing forward a subject which, at first sight, might appear to be so familiar.

FIG. 1.-S. ALESSIO.

Very little has been published on these towers in particular. The articles on campanili in the Architectural Publication Society's Dictionary deal with the subject as a whole, with only slight references to those of Rome; but they fortunately contain a carefully measured drawing, by the late James Morant Lockyer, of S. Maria in Cosmedin. The references made to the subject by Professor Willis, in his Remarks; by Mr. Woods,† in his Letters; and by John W. Papworth, are of a very general character; and in the chapter devoted to campanili in the introduction to the most recent edition of Murray's Handbook to Rome, no authorities are given for the statements made or for the dates adduced. The drawings published by Gutensohn and Knapp, one of which is reproduced in Fergusson's Handbook,§ seem inaccurate, as can be tested by comparing their drawing of S. Maria in Cosmedin with that by Lockyer. There is a very interesting account, published as an appendix, in Cancellieri's work || on the bells of the tower of the Capitol, written by Friar Jacques Ponyard. It is of some value, as he gives lists of the campanili existing in his time and references to authorities not now available;

but as he wrote some time before 1806, a period unfavourable to architectural criticism, many of his deductions are open to doubt. These are the principal writers to whom we have to turn for any information on our subject; but as they differ so widely in their opinions, and rarely give any

[graphic]

authority for their statements, I propose, for the present, to ignore them altogether, and deal

*Remarks, &c., by R. Willis.

+ Letters of an Architect, by J. Woods.

On the Transitions in Various Styles of Art, from the Original Type of Campanili, in Italy, to the usual Belltowers of the Present Time, by John W. Papworth.

§ History of Architecture. Fergusson & Spiers. 3rd edition, p. 578, fig. 459.

Le due nuove campane di Campidoglio, by Francesco Cancellieri. Roma, 1806.

with the problem in a different manner. We have statements and legends innumerable to the effect that such-and-such a church was built or restored by such-and-such a Pope; but in no case, except S. Peter's itself, is any mention made apart of thecampanile. I shall therefore endeavour, from an independent study of the buildings themselves, their details and their ornamentation, by a comparison of them with dated examples in neighbouring places, and by the aid of the mediaval history of the city as related by the most recent of its historians, Gregorovius,* to show that we are almost forced to the conclusion that these edifices were built during the limited period which elapsed between the erection of the campanile of S. Peter's by Pope Leo the Third, and the devastations wrought by Robert Guiscard and his Normans after their capture of the city; that is to say, between the beginning of the ninth and the end of the eleventh century.

In describing the normal type of the mediaval Roman campanile, I cannot do better than quote the exact words of Professor Willis † :

The brick towers of Rome are square, the basement storey is carried
up without apertures to a height about equal to that of the roof of the
building to which it belongs; above this the tower is divided by brick
cornices into storeys, the number of which varies in different
examples. At S. Maria in Cosmedin there are seven, exclusive of
the basement; the two lower ones have on each face two round-
headed windows, and the third three; the remaining four storeys
have on each face a window of three lights.

Of the towers which answer to this description there
are some thirty-six still remaining, and they are,
S. Alessio, S. Bartolomeo all' Isola, S. Benedetto in
Piscinula, S. Cecilia, S. Cosimato, S. Crisogono, S.
Croce in Gerusalemme, S. Eusebio, S. Eustachio in
Platana, S. Francesca Romana (S. Maria Nuova),
S. Giacomo alla Lungara, S. Giorgio in Velabro,
S. Giovanni in Laterano, S. Giovanni a Porta Latina,
SS. Giovanni e Paolo, S. Lorenzo fuori le Mura,
S. Lorenzo in Lucina, S. Lorenzo in Panisperna,
S. Lucia ad Arcum Obscurum, Madonna del Divino
Amore, S. Marco, S. Maria in Capella, S. Maria in
Campomarzio, S. Maria in Cosmedin, S. Maria in
Monticelli, S. Maria in Trastevere, S. Michele in
Borgo, S. Prassede, S. Pudenziana, SS. Quattro
Coronati, SS. Quirico e Giulitta, SS. Rufina e Seconda
in Trastevere, S. Salvatore delle Coppelle, S. Sal-
vatore della Corte, S. Silvestro in Capite, and S. Sisto Vecchio. Besides these there are
others which bear a general resemblance to the normal type, such as S. Maria Maggiore,

[graphic]

FIG. 2.-S. CECILIA.

History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, by Ferdinand Gregorovius, translated from the 4th German edition by Annie Hamilton. + Remarks, &c., p. 145.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »