32 CLASSICAL LITERATURE. 4. The style, and sort of words, of which the language should consist. 5. The dialect, or forms, flexions, &c. in the words admitted. Again, at a later period, in Nos. xxiii. and xxxvi. (1815 and 1818), my attention was drawn by particular circumstances to the Prosody of Greek verse as connected with dialect, &c.: and in the latter of the two articles alluded to (pp. 375, 6,) I ventured to propose a general law for the composition of that ode, arising out of a criticism on Mr. Hall's prize Poem; which may now, perhaps, Mr. Urban, be submitted to your academical readers with better chance of successful attention. "In settling the dialect, or forms and flexions of Greek words, which the modern Sapphic ode may most properly exhibit, we have to encounter much diversity of practice, and find very little to guide us in any principles hitherto laid down. Mr.. Hall, like most of his predecessors, oscillates betwixt the Eolic of Sappho and the late Doric of Theocritus,strange mixture of ages as can well be imagined. "Wherever some determinate rule is wanting, inconsistency and discord must naturally follow. And it is not therefore at present imputed as any fault to Mr. H. that in the course of twenty-six stanzas many points of etymology and accent occur, which cannot be reduced to any one system, and which can just as little be reconciled to each other. "Let us once more attempt to decide this question in a practical way, and to lay down a clear and consistent line for the guidance of young scholars in writing the Greek Sapphic stanza. "1. Grant that the text of SAPPHO's few reliques has received from the critical acumen and depth of Mr. Blomfield its most elaborate and perhaps final castigation. Yet surely, even now, no modest man would undertake, for the labour of a life-time, to write on a new subject, six and twenty stanzas, exactly and purely after the manner of Sappho! One might defy any man living to do it, and to demonstrate it rightly done. The thing is impossible and it palpably is. so, from the want of materials for imitathe archetype. [Jan. "2. If a distinct and complete model then be required, on which a Greek ode in the Æolic dialect may be attempted with any chance of success; the only Æolian poet yet extant presents his lyric treasures, in sufficient abundance and variety for the purpose. 'PINDAR, in the most brilliant age of Greece, enjoyed unexampled celebrity; marked indeed with a dialectic character of his own, yet not provincial and rude, but elegant at once and popular-from Thebes to Athens, and from Syracuse to Cyrene. "3. But why should not a third sect arise, discarding the study of Pindar as arduous or unnecessary, and the model of Sappho as quite impracticable? A general pattern might easily be found in the collective manner and matter of the Choral odes of the three Greek Tragedians. Nothing of the kind perhaps has yet been attempted or avowed: though in the simplicity of its style and dialect (from the slight use of a few Doric forms which the Tragics allow) such a composition could hardly fail of succeeding. At any rate, that plan would effectually banish the chaos of dialect and style, which now so disagreeably prevails. All would then be of a piece; and we should not be offended by Pindar conflicting with Theocritus, or by Sappho jostling with Menander, in the very same verse. "Here, it may be said, are two rules proposed, clear enough, each of them, and consistent, to be sure; but much too strict and narrow for the young scholar to observe, who in school or in college is called upon to write the Greek Sapphic stanza. "Some indulgence may seem fairly due to so candid a plea: and he who makes the plea honestly, will not be condemned, if in any exercise where the muse of Pindar predominates, he harmoniously introduce the diction of the Tragic ode, or with the matter and manner of the Tragic ode consistently unite the style and the dialect of Pindar. "Only, at all events, in this advanced and advancing period of Greek literature, let the Prolusiones Academice have a steady bearing to some age, to some character, to some plan. The great, the only rational object, proposed in these prizes of our University, is to encourage the cultiva 1831.] Removal of the Screen at York Minster. tion of classical taste along with ex- Mr. URBAN, R.S.Y. was YOUR learned correspondent Mr. Barker, in his account of the game of "Micatio Digitorum," which practised by the ancient Romans and, Greeks, and by the modern Italians and Chinese, has omitted to state the instance of a similar pastime practised at this day among English youth, derived probably from the above. Though it is not very common, I have seen it pursued occasionally in schools after the manner I am about to describe. When two lads agree upon playing, the one mounts the back of the other, the latter generally resting his elbows on a bench, or some such supporter, while his hands cover his face and eyes. The one who is mounted holding up a number of fingers cries out— "Butt, butt, how many fingers do I hold up?" If the under boy guesses 33 wrong, six we will say, when there are eight held up, the other repeating the following formula, is obliged immediately to change the number of them-"six you say and eight there are; butt, butt, how many fingers do I hold up?" While the under one continues to guess wrong, the process is repeated until he hits upon the right number, when they both change places, and the other party becomes "butt" in his turn. This game, it would seem, then, depends entirely upon the degree of confidence which the parties mutually place in each other's integrity;-whatever may have taken place in that respect among the Romans, whether according to the commentator on Cicero, and perhaps even Adams himself, they are supposed to have played their game occasionally in the dark, or whether, according to Mr. Barker, they never did. That the game I mention is in some manner allied to the Italian, if not derived from it, is rendered pretty evident, I think,. from the coincidence of some words made use of with those of Forcellinus, as quoted by Mr. B. "quod nos Longobardi dicimus fare, o givocare, o BUTT are al tocco.' Yours, &c. T. GRIMES. PROPOSED REMOVAL OF THE SCREEN AS YORK MINSTER. THE meeting at York to decide the question of the removal of the organ Screen took place on the 28th of December; and notwithstanding all the ingenuity of the party opposed to good taste and the arrangement of antiquity, the advocates for its preservation in its ancient proportions and situation defeated their scheme, as at the former meeting in July; but to turn victory into a defeat, if possible, the prince of modern innovators advanced suddenly with a list of 623 proxies, collected, as Mr. Morritt observed, "from the last place in the world from which he should expect to look for a decision on Gothic architecture-the stand at Doncaster!" Ladies canvassed their partners at a ball; a vote to deface the Minster was the "result of a bet made at Doncaster as to the issue of that meeting;" and clergymen canvassed for votes in their respective parishes. These proxies outnumbered the above meeting, which consisted of 211, and which was called to decide the question. The unfairness of the removalists in this case is very strongly evinced. At the meeting in July Mr. Scott, a staunch advocate for the preservation of the Screen, produced two proxies, which the Dean, and afterwards GENT. MAG. January, 1831. the Archbishop as chairman, refused to receive; but, at the last meeting, Mr. Vernon, finding himself in a minority, brings forward 623 proxies, thus attempting to quash the proceedings of the day; and after a discussion of six hours, tacitly admitting that the question was already settled before the chairman took the chair, by the overwhelming majority of proxies. Surely then, after so protracted a discussion, and after their own decision against proxies, it was rather too bad to contend for the admission of written opinions, obtained by means not the most likely to obtain the seuse of the subscribers on a question of taste.* At the meeting in York, in July, of 200 persons present, about twenty or thirty only voted for the measure; of fifty-eight letters read, fifty were for the Screen remaining as it now stands! The friends of antiquity, and of the Minster as it was, felt consoled and comforted that this was finally settled, and settled it certainly ought to have been to all intents and purposes; but, a few weeks after, to their great astonishment and grief, this matter Yorkshire Gazette. 34 Removal of the Screen at York Minster. was again brought forward oy a nobleman favourable to the new measure, at the conclusion of a county meeting called at York for the purpose of voting an address of condolence and congratulation to his present Majesty, and attempted to be brought forward ere the friends of the original design were aware of the matter. ("This," says Mr. Etty, "I confess, always appeared to me very much like a ruse; I may be mistaken, but others have thought so too.") The nobleman, who was chairman of the fund for its restoration, rose and said, "He certainly was one of those who thought that when the subscribers gave their money for the purpose of restoring the Minster, they meant the restoration to what it was at the time it was burnt." This was followed by loud applause. He said, "The right way to go to work was, in his opinion, to call a meeting in two or three months, and each subscriber to make up his mind; so that a second meeting is called, setting it afloat again, after it had been once fairly settled, because we are told it was not satisfactory!' I, God knows, have no enmity against any man (except the incendiary), or body of men; on the contrary; but I am sorry to say that this sort of procedure does not seem to me quite fair and straightforward. On that ground I certainly do object to the matter being again agitated, or to any departure from the original pledge." Lord Harewood took the chair, which he occupied at the first meeting, and his Lordship repeated what he had formerly stated, namely, that the meeting was held for the restoration of the Minster. After some remarks on the former meetings, his Lordship concluded: "The principal cause of the discontent was an idea that it was intended to use the money of the subscribers for a purpose not contemplated at the time of subscribing. That was the ground-work of the complaint; and he said, it was no ground-work at all. He cared not about the Screen; but he did care very much about this, that the subscribers should feel that there was no attempt in any party to do with their money what they disapproved of; that was the only subject in which he took an interest; he was no partizan in any other way." W. F. L. Scolt, Esq. moved the previous question; as a general meeting of subscribers was held on the 29th day of July, the decision of which ought to be final. Mr. Morritt spoke at considerable length, and with great ability, defending the position of the Screen, and triumphantly exposing the sinister course of the opposing party in changing the final decision from one meeting to another, in the expectation of deciding the question their own way; the disgraceful method of collecting votes; the bad faith towards the subscribers; the circulation of a deceptive drawing not taken [Jan In from the building, but made up from views of portions of the Minster published or sketched at different times; in short, Mr. Morritt exposed so many instances of disingenuousness, which were not explicitly denied, that we think the removalists will not appear in a very favourable light to the majority of the subscribers. Mr. Morritt observed, "Much had been said about influential subscribers; but influence did not imply a knowledge of either Grecian or Gothic architecture. Under the auspices of influential subscribers much mischief had been done to our ancient cathedrals. fluential subscribers were led away, more than any others, by the fashion of the day; and every day had a fashionable architect of its own. Under the fashionable architect Mr. Wyatt, the cathedrals of Durham, Salisbury, and Lichfield were mutilated and disfigured. Mr. Sinirke asserts that the position of the Screen in English Cathedrals is not uniform. He was aware the division of the choir from the nave was sometimes placed to the west of the pillars of the central tower; but this, he contended, was done when, in consequence of the number of the clergy, the choir was found insufficient to accommodate them. But in none of our Cathedrals, with the exception of Ely, which was comparatively modern, was the Screen placed to the eastward of the tower. He had a right therefore, to conclude, that when the choir was sufficient to accommodate the clergy, it terminated at the lantern. The report, and the opinion of Mr. Wilkins, had startled him at first; but neither Mr. Wilkins, nor Mr. Smirke, nor the Canon Residentiary himself (Mr. Vernon), should tell him that the Screen must be removed into another situation because they liked it better. He would say, that an architect, in repairing our ancient cathedrals, was not to tell him of his taste, but to produce his authority. He admitted that the Canon Residentiary had pointed out some defects which would be remedied were the Screen removed, but other defects more glaring would be exhibited by the removal. Mr. Vernon, Canon Residentiary, attempted to defend himself and friends, particularly with respect to the deceptive drawing, and laboured, by producing Mr. Britton's plates of the Minster, to show that all prints and drawings were inaccurate; but this was only making bad worse, for in none of Mr. Britton's plates is the perspective distorted the views are fairly taken from different positions on the floor, and there are no tricks of light and shade; but in these respects, and in regard to perspective, nothing can be more faulty than the view published by the removalists. It is tricked out to ensure the approbation and vote of those who have no knowledge of plain architectural lines, and who are easily charmed with a pretty print. Mr. Vernon complained of the consequences of his own 1831.] Removal of the Screen at York Minster. party's conduct, and charged the newspapers with exciting the irritation which existed throughout the county on the subject of the innovation. The Yorkshire Gazette has very ably refuted this unjust charge, and adds, with truth, that if it had not been for the newspapers, the subscribers would have heard nothing of the matter till the Screen had been taken down. Mr. Vernon quoted in favour of his opinion the names of several provincial architects, not celebrated for their knowledge of our ancient architecture, but known in their neighbourhood for their buildings in the Gothic style; which style, it is well known, contemns the authority of such models of excellence as are exhibited in York Minster. Their opinion, no doubt, is as good as that of the majority of contemporary architects, who have never studied the ancient architecture of England as they profess to have done that of Grecian and Roman origin. They should, however, be told that it requires even more industry to become thoroughly acquainted with its principles than any style which has fixed and certain rules. Stuart has supplied the majority of architects with the greater part of their knowledge of ancient models; but there is no folio of taste for the use of the office, consequently the Barrys* of the day are very few. Mr. Vernon said: "With the drawings, fifteen hundred copies of Mr. Smirke's report had been circulated; and the opinion of the subscribers had been requested. A number of letters had, in consequence, been received; those in favour of the removal being upwards of 600; and those against it being something more than 100. A meeting was held in Leeds on the subject, where 63 persons were present; and 60 of them had set their names down in favour of the removal, and only three against it." Mr. Vernon was followed by the venerable Archdeacon Markham, a name which will for ever be revered by the admirers of ancient English architecture, and of York Minster in particular. This gentleman is the brother of the late Dean, who set an example of care and regard for his cathedral, which, it is to be regretted, is already forgotten, or remembered only by those who cannot follow his admirable pattern. The Archdeacon reflected in strong terms on the proceedings subsequent to the meeting in July, which he argued ought to have been, as it was intended, final on the question. He read a letter from Lord Mansfield, declaring his opinion to be against the removal of the Screen; and that, if he even entertained a different opinion on the subject, he would have condemned the propriety of the present meeting. The Archdeacon pointed out, with peculiar skill, the Charles Barry, Esq. an architect of elegant taste. inaccuracies of the drawing which has occasioned so much criticism, inaccuracies glaring and perfectly indefensible. The model was likewise incorrect. The scale upon which it was executed was two inches to ten feet. Consequently, a person standing at the distance of four feet two inches from the face of the model, was placed as far from that Screen as the west door is from the present Screen in the Minster. He had often seen, however, people place themselves as far as ten or twelve feet from the model; little thinking, that from the diminutive scale of the model, they were standing certainly far out of the Minster; probably without Bootham-bar, or perhaps on the Manor Shore. Mr. Smirke took it for granted, that every subscriber agrees that the Minster should be restored in the most "perfect and enlarged sense of the term;" surely then, he ought to have kept to restoration alone; and not have brought forward dissertations from Mr. Wilkins on the nature of innovations, which he had himself distinctly declared he would avoid. (Applause.) It had been asserted that the inner porch of the Screen is of a later date than the ornamental Screen front. Now it was only necessary to look at it, to be convinced that this was not the case; as the two porches, and the ornamental fronting to the Screen, were banded in together, so as to shew that the western Screen and the choir front of the porch were built at the same time. There were many reasons why this porch should not be destroyed. In the recent discoveries made of a Norman church below the pavement of the choir, the antiquity of the Minster had been raised to the time of the conquest (applause)— -so that they now had a specimen of every change of Gothic English architecture from that period to the period of Henry VII. when cathedral Gothic architecture sunk never to rise again. It was a proud possession; and few cathedrals could boast of such beautiful specimens as they had. (Applause.) But the link of this interesting series, which was now complete, would be broken by the demolition of nearly half the porch, where the only specimen of fan-tracery in the Minster now existed. (Hear, hear.) That porch, which now threw a shade between the broad light of the nave and the entrance of the choir, creating that gloom so productive of religious feeling; and that mystic awe which, on other occasions, Mr. Smirke knew so well how to appreciate, that porch would now be reduced to paltry dimensions! (Hear, hear.) And why these innovations! It had been discovered that the porch did not stand in the centre of the nave. Wonderful discovery! It was never intended it should do so; nor could it ever be placed by Mr. Smirke in the centre of the nave and of the choir. If irregularity in ancient buildings were an argument for altering, or rather 36 Removal of the Screen at York Minster. destroying them, what would become of the No sooner did he see it than he repented of it; and sincerely lamented that which the poverty of the Minster funds compelled him to do. If the meeting, then, saw the error of removing the Screen, which he hoped they would, let them imitate him, not in what he did amiss, but in acknowledging that they were wrong; and depend upon it," added the Rev. Gent. much affected, "if you never did more harm to the Minster than Dean Markham did, it will still continue to stand unrivalled among the cathedrals of Europe." (Cheers.) No one, he presumed, would deny that the present Screen was built for the spot where it now stood; and that the architect built it in proportion to the situation it occupied. The Screen, being 23 feet six inches high, was in the proportion of about one-eighth to the height of the tower, which was near 200 feet high now, when brought eastward to the first column in the choir, its proportion would be about one-fourth to the height of the canopy, which was not 100 feet high. This was, he supposed, one of Mr. Smirke's substantial restorations; any thing more contrary to architectural rules he could not conceive. (Applause.) If it was an innovation, in its day, to place the Screen against the great pillars, it surely must be equally an innovation now to place it against a column in the choir, for which it was never intended. (Applause.) The argument, "that the pillars concealed by the Screen were constructed with a view to be seen on every side, and that their shafts and moulded bases were worked down to the level of the pavement," proved nothing. The same thing would be found in different parts of the Minster tabernacle-work itself; and was also recently found to be the case in removing an old screen in the cathedral at Norwich. It was a curious thing that, in all remarks that had been made in favour of the removal of the Screen, not one word had been said of its appearance when viewed from the east end; but the great pillars of [Jan. the lantern had been extolled, and every thing most beautiful in the Minster must give way to the setting them off to the greater advantage. No person admired that part of the fabric more than himself; but he must contend that it was not the finest part of the cathedral. (Hear.) The choir unquestionably had the pre-eminence, and had always been considered as the finest choir in Europe by all persons of taste in this as well as in all other countries. (Applause.) It surprised him too, to see the composure with which the removal of the altar Screen was contemplated; as if that were not, in itself, a glaring innovation. That was deemed too trivial even to mention, as the removal of it one arch further east, was considered nothing; it made not the slightest difference to the eye; as they had before been told that the diminishing the choir 30 feet in 220, would never be perceived. Supposing, however, that, as Mr. Smirke said, no one would miss 30 feet in 220, that is one arch out of nine, they surely would be able to detect the taking away of one arch out of three, between the altar Screen and the east window; if not, it showed him what he had always thought, how incompetent the generality of people were to form correct opinions from looking at a plan. He would contend that it was the present situation of the altar Screen which gave magnificence and grandeur to the whole choir. It was not the space between the altar and organ Screen which gave the grand effect, but the whole length from the organ Screen to the east window; that noble waste of room, that disregard of space between the altar Screen and the east window which was so striking, and which constituted that sublime effect which was so imposing. The Reverend Mr. Landon, of Aberford, followed in a speech expressive of his utter contempt of the original design of the Minster, and he called the Screen an "incumbrance which disgraced the finest part of the Minster," the same Screen which immediately after the fire was spoken of with admiration, and its escape from injury regarded with unfeigned and universal delight. Rich. Bethell, Esq. then moved, "That the plan of Mr. Smirka for the removal of the organ Screen be adopted." Mr. Fawkes seconded the resolution. Mr. Scott moved as an amendment, that "It is the opinion of this meeting that the decision of the meeting held in this place on the 29th of July last, was, and ought to be final." Mr. Stapylton was for the alteration, and made a long speech, in which he invoked disapprobation. He was frequently interrupted by coughing, and other symptoms of impatience and censure. Lord Morpeth asserted that it had been proved that "the position of the Screen was |